5 ms·

Buying groceries for rich people, I realized upward mobility is largely a myth

51 points by drags 11y ago

eitally 11y ago
I think this article is important and useful, but the title she chose is misleading. The content has absolutely nothing to do with higher education, or either correlative or causative connection to her employment with Instacart. Social mobility is an interesting research area, and it's important to be aware that most people who claim bootstrapping out of poverty is easy are the folks who've never been in poverty or worked menial jobs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the... Press coverage: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-social-mobility-parents-income/399311/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-... http://www.salon.com/2015/03/07/the_myth_destroying_america_why_social_mobility_is_beyond_ordinary_peoples_control/ http://www.salon.com/2015/03/07/the_myth_destroying_america_... http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/05/27-inequality-great-gatsby-curve-sawhill http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2... http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america... Original research / scholarly articles: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115000062 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115... http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc262g.pdf http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc262g.pdf
- dang 11y ago
  Authors at media publications usually don't get to choose titles, so let's not assume she chose it. We'll use the subtitle for now (shortened to fit the limit). If anyone has a better idea, we can change it again. By the way, we put this article in the second-chance pool (described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10705926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10705926 and the other links there) and removed the penalty normally applied to buzzfeed.com. We did that because on first glance, at least, it's far better than the median article in this category: it speaks substantively from first-hand experience. This is also a category that tends to set off flamewars. Hopefully commenters will respond to the substance of the piece and that won't happen this time.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- fleitz 11y ago
  Did people stop hiring plumbers? It's difficult in North America to become a millionaire, but it's pretty trivial to escape poverty. What I often find is people would rather be poor than sell their skills to the highest bidder, eg. I know welders who refuse $60/hr jobs because they dislike the oil industry. Or train for jobs that actually pay, like plumbing.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    I don't know what it's like the US, but in the UK becoming a plumber is a long way from "pretty trivial." http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/may/15/fast-track-plumbing-courses http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/may/15/fast-track-plum...
    - marincounty 11y ago
      Here it's not difficult, unless you want a union plumbing job. The reason why becomming a union plumber is difficult, say for San Francisco local ?, is getting every question on an easy test right. Plus there's a lot of people applying to take the test. Those Union plumbers are paid I believe over $100/HR. The easy way is just call yourself a Plumber, and put an ad on CL. Something like what that very conservative guy did--what's his name--"Joe the Plumber". In all honestly, these guys get the job done. I wouldn't want them installing hydronic heating though. The other way is get a licence through the state. You can get a general contractor's licence, or a Plumber's licence. It's easy. There's schools that will walk you through the paperwork, and an easy test. You don't need the school. They are a ripoff. If your young, and have kids, a union plumbing job is great. Non-union plumbing is a horrid job. The only one making a real living us the owner. I was in the San Franciso electrical union and it was a good deal. I didn't stick around. Just found construction very boring, but it paid well. If anyone reads this who's thinking about going into a union trade, I'll pass this along. Construction is construction. Stay away from non-union construction. If you are going to be a construction worker go union, and try to get into these unions in this order. The order I'm picking us quality of work, and pay. Elevator mechanics union(might have changed name?) Electrical union local 6 if in San Francisco. Plumbers union, or HVAC union(forget the name) Stay away from carpenters union, unless you get into the finish carpenters uinion(if still around?) Stay away from roofing, concrete, insulation, and painting--if you can? If you really want to go into one of those trades make sure to get into the union. Non-union construction is right above not working. "Oh, but I see Tom, and Horhe, and they seem happy?". I don't know how these guys are happy. I've worked non-union, and it paid retail. The conditions were horrid. To anyone against union, do a non-union construction job just one day. Just one day. Look at what you are paid. Then look at the house that the owner of the non-union lives in. He usually has houses, and he bought each of his kids their first house. Hands down worst job I ever had was at Bradley Electric. My father went through a union apprenticeship program with this guy--if he's still around. He opened a very successful non-union shop, and would hire desperate guys, at horrid wages.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  and it's important to be aware that most people who claim bootstrapping out of poverty is easy are the folks who've never been in poverty or worked menial jobs I don't know about easy, but I know from personal experience that it's possible, at least in some cases. I did it. And I saw other people do it. And while it's not politically correct to say this, I firmly believe that a significant factor in whether (some) people escape their circumstances or not is simply desire and work ethic. Just to share an interesting anecdote... when I was in college, I had a friend who went to my same school. He didn't have a car, and the campus was about 12-15 miles from his home. Did he let that deter him? F%!# no... dude walked to school the days he couldn't get a ride. This guy had a burning passion to improve his life and he wasn't going to let something as trivial as lack of transportation stop him. Now, how many people are willing to commit to that level of effort to raise themselves up? I don't know, but my experience suggests that it's a pretty small percentage.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
lostmsu 11y ago
TL;DR Why is it a myth?
- llamataboot 11y ago
  many studies: http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/02/americans-think-upward-mobility-is-far-more-common-than-it-really-is/385086/ http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/02/americans-think-upward-m...
- skylan_q 11y ago
  Find one example of a poor person working hard and becoming rich! You can't! Ergo, myth.
  - lostmsu 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin
- fleitz 11y ago
  Because people would rather complain than do something about their situation.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Alex3917 11y ago
I find it amusing that one of Instacart's competitors, TaskRabbit, is currently blanketing the NYC subway system with ads that say "We do chores. You live life." The implication being, at least the way I read it, that they consider their workforce to be perhaps slightly less than human.
- cperciva 11y ago
  I'm struggling to understand how you can possibly jump from "we do chores; you live life" to "our workers are subhuman". Are you saying that only subhumans do chores?
  - skylan_q 11y ago
    It was either: 1) A brainfart on OP's part or 2) You're watching someone who doesn't do chores pontificate on how bad "the poor people" have it.
  - Alex3917 11y ago
    If the people you hire to do your chores are doing something other than "living life", to me that implies they aren't really human. (Since living life is sort of part of the whole human thing.)
  - chipsy 11y ago
    Cold logic. The advertisement defines life as something that is not doing chores. Therefore people who do chores are not living. Whether that makes them "subhuman" does involve some interpretation, but if you call someone "not alive" you aren't exactly complementing them.
- WalterSear 11y ago
  Yes, they are all over the financial district in SF. They are odious, especially in contrast to the squalor and desperation of the surroundings (Bus stops full of the homeless and the working poor). Very American Psycho.
- skylan_q 11y ago
  "We do chores. You live life." The implication being that they consider their workforce to be less than human. That doesn't follow at all. Just because people do chores it doesn't mean they aren't able to live or that they are less than human.
mywittyname 11y ago
After reading that article, I realize how much truth there is to the old adage that, with a good article, you delete more than you save. This article feels like an interesting and thought provoking topic, but if it's there, it's hard to pinpoint while wading through the biography of half the author's family. Twenty three paragraphs but no message.
- skylan_q 11y ago
  Twenty three paragraphs but no message. The message is "tax the rich".
  - x5n1 11y ago
    Which is the wrong message, but that's what happens in constant class warfare society. They screw us we screw them, and on and on it goes.
    - skylan_q 11y ago
      Many messages could be inferred but the title gave more than enough subtext to give the author's/publisher's intent. What I gathered from this is that the author is making bad career choices and people in her family are prone to making bad choices. She can't handle a woman laughing at her, so she decides to be a writer like her father. Seems like not growing up and having poor decision-making skills is what's stopping her upward mobility. Buzzfeed is full of examples of this idea: I should be able to do what I want for a living because I want to do it, and it should make me upwardly mobile.
      - x5n1 11y ago
        > author is making bad career choices and people in her family are prone to making bad choices. It's the standard mantra however it's not true. The reason it's not true is that there is a labor market. The labor market can be generalized as being controlled by a few variables. Those variables are significantly in greater control of those with money than those without money. Upward mobility is possible if and only if you can provide services that are valued highly, and when some labor is valued highly then those with money who have their hands deep in the political economy try to find ways of reducing the cost by for instance lobbying the government to increase the number of people getting educated in those fields, increasing research and development to try to automate those jobs, buying more technology to reduce the cost, increasing immigration and so on. So yes you can try to get ahead, but it's a fact that the deck is stacked against you. Those with money want to get richer and they know they do it by exploiting people by paying them as little and making as much money from whatever they produce and keep that it in their pockets rather than paying for them anything higher than the market will bear, and even then we find them colluding with each other as in the case of Apple and Google to not compete with each other lest they drive up the cost of employment. So yes your advice is common fare, but few people get ahead and that's because the people with money always working to keep it that way... and increase the skew. Even now they are selling the idiot masses the dreams of automation while anyone with any sense knows automation is horrible for upward mobility and a way for those with money to end class war once and for all in their favor. Yet the masses have been seduced to allow it to happen. If they were thinking logically they would be like Luddites and resist it with all that they have disposal. But then the counter argument is that something might happen that makes the system work after all, for instance minimum income which will then be determined by continued class warfare after this battle is over, which again is on the side of those with capital, or Capitalists.
NhanH 11y ago
The topic itself is worth discussing. However I'm not actually sure why this specific article was the one being picked for a second chance. It's one long life story (stories?), and there is nothing in it supporting either the title or subtitle. Yes, her upbringing was bad, but I wanted to know what happened personally to her after graduating that she's where she is now. Or even better: what exactly could have helped her (by government or society) getting to where she want to be in life? Those details are no where to be found. And I'd like to hear others' opinion on this, but I don't consider her writing to be good. Maybe if she want to be a writer, that has something to do with it?
- weberc2 11y ago
  My thoughts exactly. I thought it was going to be another "I got a liberal arts degree and now I'm outraged that I can't find a job; upward mobility isn't real!" article, but it wasn't even that... :/
- x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
  I'm also curious what 2 degrees she has that prevent her from getting a job in her field.
  - home_boi 11y ago
    I did a quick "site:linkedin.com" google search. Bachelors in English and Masters in writing from not the best colleges.
    - gearoidoc 11y ago
      "from not the best colleges" You do realise that it's a considerable achievement for someone from a working class background to go to third level at all, right?
  - _rpd 11y ago
    According to her linkedin ... Master of Fine Arts (MFA), Creative Writing, from California Institute of the Arts B.A., English from Temple University
maerF0x0 11y ago
> I was nonetheless positioned only marginally better off than my grandparents >listing the indignities she felt working these jobs with a laconic intensity and steady determination: washing the house’s windows inside and out, cleaning the mattresses and box springs, scrubbing the floors on her knees, a lunch of a cheese sandwich and a glass of milk offered by a client that was quickly rejected, getting paid $3 a day. I'd argue that smartphone in hand, greater than minimum wage rate, flexible work schedule and the option of going to post secondary education constitutes more than a "marginal" improvement. This person is claiming that she's no better off than 2 generations prior, and but in reality is using a peer comparison to try and prove it. Short of absolute equality, someone has to be behind someone else. Someone has to have "less". But if that relative "Less" is consistently more in an absolute sense, with each generation, then clearly things are getting better. The "poor" of today have more food, more tvs, better technology, greater rights than several generations back. Largely because the rising tide is lifting the vast majority of ships.
- gearoidoc 11y ago
  I see your point but surely you agree peer comparison is fair? No doubt the author has things better than generations before (though you do have to factor in things like increased expectations as a cost for this) but if this was the only measure then social equality would be move much slower than it is.
  - maerF0x0 11y ago
    In my opinion only equal actions should demand equal results. I imagine nobody working as a freelance writer, working for instacart, taking loans against a useless asset are doing very well in this society. Therefore the author's peers are likely doing roughly as well, and thus "fair". Some sources of unfairness might be the disingenuous nature of post secondary education, selling assets (degrees) far beyond their value. Being lied to maybe the biggest claim the author has. But I dont see gender or race being a part of that claim. The lie is unfair irrespective.
bko 11y ago
> The woman who laughed at me was one of these customers with very discerning tastes currently causing me a lot of anxiety... With “all my education,” as my family would say, two degrees and the student loans to show for it, I was nonetheless positioned only marginally better off than my grandparents, who ran errands and did other grunt work two generations removed from where I now stood. I can't tell who the more entitled person is. The wealthy woman who believes she is entitled to have her discerning tastes met, or the author who believes she is entitled to work as an author regardless of her commercial success. No excuse to treat people who work for you poorly, but I think the entitlement runs both ways.
pjlegato 11y ago
The headline ("Two College Degrees Later, I Was Still Picking Kale For Rich People") is a statement of disappointed entitlement, of outrage over a belief that some implicit social contract has not been fulfilled. The reality is that just having "a degree" in a generic sense is no longer the magical ticket to a middle class lifestyle that it was in 1960. It's become too common and is no longer much of a differentiator in most job markets. A related issue is that many, many people have degrees in non-marketable subjects. Whatever one may think of the intrinsic value of studying history, philosophy, English literature, anthropology, art history, etc. there simply is not much demand in our society for specialists in these fields -- and so you wind up picking kale for rich people, with a pile of student loan debt to pay. We utterly fail to communicate that fact to young students entering college. We do the opposite: follow your dream, follow your passion for anthropology or whatever and it will all somehow work out in the end. Turns out that's not actually true. Telling students that it is true is what leads to indignation and this sense of entitlement. Society just doesn't need more than a tiny number of anthropologists. Whether one thinks that society ought to need more of them is irrelevant. It's disingenous to keep encouraging kids to get degrees in non-marketable subjects, to keep pretending that economic reality should not be a factor in what you choose to study.
- gearoidoc 11y ago
  I agree with you with one caveat: there really was a social contract in place that said something along the lines of "Finish third level and you'll walk into a job thats better than flipping burgers". That contract has been broken. I think it was stupid to begin with but it was a message very clearly sent from generations, society, government that went before. As you say, it still is. So does the writer have reason to be aggrieved? I think so. However, at some stage in an adults life they need to do some critical thinking and independently decide whats the optimal way to climb the pay ladder (legally). That critical thinking is something that is simply not taught in schools. Perhaps its not teachable at all.
  - _rpd 11y ago
    > there really was a social contract in place that said something along the lines of "Finish third level and you'll walk into a job thats better than flipping burgers" Was this ever true for a Masters in Creative Writing? My understanding is that this class of degree has always been a social signal for "my family is so wealthy, I will never need to work."
amsha 11y ago
In my experience, writing (or any other art) is maybe the most downwardly-mobile profession there is. The supply of artists far outstrips the demand for art, and getting your first job often depends on proximity to industry gatekeepers. I can't speak specifically for the publishing industry, but in film and television people tend to get writing jobs through personal connections. The four paths I've seen for people who make it in film/tv: * Have a family member who gets you your first job. * Have rich parents who completely subsidize your work for a few years and provide anonymous funding for your first feature film. * Have upper-middle class parents who partially subsidize your work for a few years, and get ready to be an assistant for 3-25 years while you build connections with the business bros that determine your future. * Have lower-middle class parents. Be extraordinarily driven and ignore all material needs while you win festivals and get noticed. The lower you are on the list, the more effort it takes to maximize your probability of success. Realistically, almost no one makes it from the bottom category.
- skylan_q 11y ago
  Serious question: Do you feel that society should be re-adjusted/obligated in some way to make more upwardly-mobile paths for writers?
  - cortesoft 11y ago
    I don't know; do you feel like the world doesn't have enough writers?
  - home_boi 11y ago
    It already has. The internet has made distributing and selling text content thousands of times easier.
drags 11y ago
I think it's interesting that we're 44 comments in and nobody has commented on how race fits into this. She sees herself as someone working her way up into a freelance writing career. Her customers, her bosses and her family view her as the kind of person unlikely to do anything more than what her parents and grandparents did: bounce around through low-wage, low-prestige jobs like Instacart their entire working life. When everyone around you assumes you won't make it higher, it's hard not to wonder if they're right. And society assumes African-Americans are much less likely to achieve career success. [1] [1] See http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html for instance: "Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with African-American names was much smaller."
- pjlegato 11y ago
  Nobody has commented on how race fits into this because race is entirely irrelevant to the theme of the article. Her skin color is not relevant to her picking kale for a living. She's picking kale because she got two college degrees in non-marketable subjects, not because she's black. Not every topic contains a hidden narrative of latent racist oppression just waiting for an overeducated postmodernist to come along and deconstruct it, even if it does involve people of a visibly different ethnic background than their employer.
  - drags 11y ago
    Race is the theme of the article: "Our national history is rife with examples of black Americans facing exclusion from labor movements, as well as general workforce discrimination. It’s not hard to see how the effects of these policies have trickled down. I see my family’s work history, rendered briefly here, as a particular kind of ingenuity necessary for black Americans."
    - pjlegato 11y ago
      It's not at all, though she seems to think it is. It's about how indignant she is that she got two college degrees and still can't get a middle class job. The headline is: "Two College Degrees Later, I Was Still Picking Kale For Rich People." That happened because she studied creative writing, a largely non-marketable subject. Her being black is not relevant. If she had studied chemical engineering or dentistry or any of a large number of other in-demand subjects instead of creative writing, she'd easily have obtained a middle class job despite being black.
swagv1 11y ago
It took her that long to recognize her own under-employment??

51 points by drags 11y ago

I think this article is important and useful, but the title she chose is misleading. The content has absolutely nothing to do with higher education, or either correlative or causative connection to her employment with Instacart. Social mobility is an interesting research area, and it's important to be aware that most people who claim bootstrapping out of poverty is easy are the folks who've never been in poverty or worked menial jobs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the... Press coverage: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-social-mobility-parents-income/399311/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-... http://www.salon.com/2015/03/07/the_myth_destroying_america_why_social_mobility_is_beyond_ordinary_peoples_control/ http://www.salon.com/2015/03/07/the_myth_destroying_america_... http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/05/27-inequality-great-gatsby-curve-sawhill http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2... http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america... Original research / scholarly articles: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115000062 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115... http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc262g.pdf http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc262g.pdf

dang 11y ago
Authors at media publications usually don't get to choose titles, so let's not assume she chose it. We'll use the subtitle for now (shortened to fit the limit). If anyone has a better idea, we can change it again. By the way, we put this article in the second-chance pool (described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10705926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10705926 and the other links there) and removed the penalty normally applied to buzzfeed.com. We did that because on first glance, at least, it's far better than the median article in this category: it speaks substantively from first-hand experience. This is also a category that tends to set off flamewars. Hopefully commenters will respond to the substance of the piece and that won't happen this time.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
fleitz 11y ago
Did people stop hiring plumbers? It's difficult in North America to become a millionaire, but it's pretty trivial to escape poverty. What I often find is people would rather be poor than sell their skills to the highest bidder, eg. I know welders who refuse $60/hr jobs because they dislike the oil industry. Or train for jobs that actually pay, like plumbing.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  I don't know what it's like the US, but in the UK becoming a plumber is a long way from "pretty trivial." http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/may/15/fast-track-plumbing-courses http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/may/15/fast-track-plum...
  - marincounty 11y ago
    Here it's not difficult, unless you want a union plumbing job. The reason why becomming a union plumber is difficult, say for San Francisco local ?, is getting every question on an easy test right. Plus there's a lot of people applying to take the test. Those Union plumbers are paid I believe over $100/HR. The easy way is just call yourself a Plumber, and put an ad on CL. Something like what that very conservative guy did--what's his name--"Joe the Plumber". In all honestly, these guys get the job done. I wouldn't want them installing hydronic heating though. The other way is get a licence through the state. You can get a general contractor's licence, or a Plumber's licence. It's easy. There's schools that will walk you through the paperwork, and an easy test. You don't need the school. They are a ripoff. If your young, and have kids, a union plumbing job is great. Non-union plumbing is a horrid job. The only one making a real living us the owner. I was in the San Franciso electrical union and it was a good deal. I didn't stick around. Just found construction very boring, but it paid well. If anyone reads this who's thinking about going into a union trade, I'll pass this along. Construction is construction. Stay away from non-union construction. If you are going to be a construction worker go union, and try to get into these unions in this order. The order I'm picking us quality of work, and pay. Elevator mechanics union(might have changed name?) Electrical union local 6 if in San Francisco. Plumbers union, or HVAC union(forget the name) Stay away from carpenters union, unless you get into the finish carpenters uinion(if still around?) Stay away from roofing, concrete, insulation, and painting--if you can? If you really want to go into one of those trades make sure to get into the union. Non-union construction is right above not working. "Oh, but I see Tom, and Horhe, and they seem happy?". I don't know how these guys are happy. I've worked non-union, and it paid retail. The conditions were horrid. To anyone against union, do a non-union construction job just one day. Just one day. Look at what you are paid. Then look at the house that the owner of the non-union lives in. He usually has houses, and he bought each of his kids their first house. Hands down worst job I ever had was at Bradley Electric. My father went through a union apprenticeship program with this guy--if he's still around. He opened a very successful non-union shop, and would hire desperate guys, at horrid wages.
mindcrime 11y ago
and it's important to be aware that most people who claim bootstrapping out of poverty is easy are the folks who've never been in poverty or worked menial jobs I don't know about easy, but I know from personal experience that it's possible, at least in some cases. I did it. And I saw other people do it. And while it's not politically correct to say this, I firmly believe that a significant factor in whether (some) people escape their circumstances or not is simply desire and work ethic. Just to share an interesting anecdote... when I was in college, I had a friend who went to my same school. He didn't have a car, and the campus was about 12-15 miles from his home. Did he let that deter him? F%!# no... dude walked to school the days he couldn't get a ride. This guy had a burning passion to improve his life and he wasn't going to let something as trivial as lack of transportation stop him. Now, how many people are willing to commit to that level of effort to raise themselves up? I don't know, but my experience suggests that it's a pretty small percentage.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

lostmsu 11y ago

TL;DR Why is it a myth?

llamataboot 11y ago
many studies: http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/02/americans-think-upward-mobility-is-far-more-common-than-it-really-is/385086/ http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/02/americans-think-upward-m...
skylan_q 11y ago
Find one example of a poor person working hard and becoming rich! You can't! Ergo, myth.
- lostmsu 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin
fleitz 11y ago
Because people would rather complain than do something about their situation.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Alex3917 11y ago

I find it amusing that one of Instacart's competitors, TaskRabbit, is currently blanketing the NYC subway system with ads that say "We do chores. You live life." The implication being, at least the way I read it, that they consider their workforce to be perhaps slightly less than human.

cperciva 11y ago
I'm struggling to understand how you can possibly jump from "we do chores; you live life" to "our workers are subhuman". Are you saying that only subhumans do chores?
- skylan_q 11y ago
  It was either: 1) A brainfart on OP's part or 2) You're watching someone who doesn't do chores pontificate on how bad "the poor people" have it.
- Alex3917 11y ago
  If the people you hire to do your chores are doing something other than "living life", to me that implies they aren't really human. (Since living life is sort of part of the whole human thing.)
- chipsy 11y ago
  Cold logic. The advertisement defines life as something that is not doing chores. Therefore people who do chores are not living. Whether that makes them "subhuman" does involve some interpretation, but if you call someone "not alive" you aren't exactly complementing them.
WalterSear 11y ago
Yes, they are all over the financial district in SF. They are odious, especially in contrast to the squalor and desperation of the surroundings (Bus stops full of the homeless and the working poor). Very American Psycho.
skylan_q 11y ago
"We do chores. You live life." The implication being that they consider their workforce to be less than human. That doesn't follow at all. Just because people do chores it doesn't mean they aren't able to live or that they are less than human.

mywittyname 11y ago

After reading that article, I realize how much truth there is to the old adage that, with a good article, you delete more than you save. This article feels like an interesting and thought provoking topic, but if it's there, it's hard to pinpoint while wading through the biography of half the author's family. Twenty three paragraphs but no message.

skylan_q 11y ago
Twenty three paragraphs but no message. The message is "tax the rich".
- x5n1 11y ago
  Which is the wrong message, but that's what happens in constant class warfare society. They screw us we screw them, and on and on it goes.
  - skylan_q 11y ago
    Many messages could be inferred but the title gave more than enough subtext to give the author's/publisher's intent. What I gathered from this is that the author is making bad career choices and people in her family are prone to making bad choices. She can't handle a woman laughing at her, so she decides to be a writer like her father. Seems like not growing up and having poor decision-making skills is what's stopping her upward mobility. Buzzfeed is full of examples of this idea: I should be able to do what I want for a living because I want to do it, and it should make me upwardly mobile.
    - x5n1 11y ago
      > author is making bad career choices and people in her family are prone to making bad choices. It's the standard mantra however it's not true. The reason it's not true is that there is a labor market. The labor market can be generalized as being controlled by a few variables. Those variables are significantly in greater control of those with money than those without money. Upward mobility is possible if and only if you can provide services that are valued highly, and when some labor is valued highly then those with money who have their hands deep in the political economy try to find ways of reducing the cost by for instance lobbying the government to increase the number of people getting educated in those fields, increasing research and development to try to automate those jobs, buying more technology to reduce the cost, increasing immigration and so on. So yes you can try to get ahead, but it's a fact that the deck is stacked against you. Those with money want to get richer and they know they do it by exploiting people by paying them as little and making as much money from whatever they produce and keep that it in their pockets rather than paying for them anything higher than the market will bear, and even then we find them colluding with each other as in the case of Apple and Google to not compete with each other lest they drive up the cost of employment. So yes your advice is common fare, but few people get ahead and that's because the people with money always working to keep it that way... and increase the skew. Even now they are selling the idiot masses the dreams of automation while anyone with any sense knows automation is horrible for upward mobility and a way for those with money to end class war once and for all in their favor. Yet the masses have been seduced to allow it to happen. If they were thinking logically they would be like Luddites and resist it with all that they have disposal. But then the counter argument is that something might happen that makes the system work after all, for instance minimum income which will then be determined by continued class warfare after this battle is over, which again is on the side of those with capital, or Capitalists.

NhanH 11y ago

The topic itself is worth discussing. However I'm not actually sure why this specific article was the one being picked for a second chance. It's one long life story (stories?), and there is nothing in it supporting either the title or subtitle. Yes, her upbringing was bad, but I wanted to know what happened personally to her after graduating that she's where she is now. Or even better: what exactly could have helped her (by government or society) getting to where she want to be in life? Those details are no where to be found. And I'd like to hear others' opinion on this, but I don't consider her writing to be good. Maybe if she want to be a writer, that has something to do with it?

weberc2 11y ago
My thoughts exactly. I thought it was going to be another "I got a liberal arts degree and now I'm outraged that I can't find a job; upward mobility isn't real!" article, but it wasn't even that... :/
x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
I'm also curious what 2 degrees she has that prevent her from getting a job in her field.
- home_boi 11y ago
  I did a quick "site:linkedin.com" google search. Bachelors in English and Masters in writing from not the best colleges.
  - gearoidoc 11y ago
    "from not the best colleges" You do realise that it's a considerable achievement for someone from a working class background to go to third level at all, right?
- _rpd 11y ago
  According to her linkedin ... Master of Fine Arts (MFA), Creative Writing, from California Institute of the Arts B.A., English from Temple University

maerF0x0 11y ago

> I was nonetheless positioned only marginally better off than my grandparents >listing the indignities she felt working these jobs with a laconic intensity and steady determination: washing the house’s windows inside and out, cleaning the mattresses and box springs, scrubbing the floors on her knees, a lunch of a cheese sandwich and a glass of milk offered by a client that was quickly rejected, getting paid $3 a day. I'd argue that smartphone in hand, greater than minimum wage rate, flexible work schedule and the option of going to post secondary education constitutes more than a "marginal" improvement. This person is claiming that she's no better off than 2 generations prior, and but in reality is using a peer comparison to try and prove it. Short of absolute equality, someone has to be behind someone else. Someone has to have "less". But if that relative "Less" is consistently more in an absolute sense, with each generation, then clearly things are getting better. The "poor" of today have more food, more tvs, better technology, greater rights than several generations back. Largely because the rising tide is lifting the vast majority of ships.

gearoidoc 11y ago
I see your point but surely you agree peer comparison is fair? No doubt the author has things better than generations before (though you do have to factor in things like increased expectations as a cost for this) but if this was the only measure then social equality would be move much slower than it is.
- maerF0x0 11y ago
  In my opinion only equal actions should demand equal results. I imagine nobody working as a freelance writer, working for instacart, taking loans against a useless asset are doing very well in this society. Therefore the author's peers are likely doing roughly as well, and thus "fair". Some sources of unfairness might be the disingenuous nature of post secondary education, selling assets (degrees) far beyond their value. Being lied to maybe the biggest claim the author has. But I dont see gender or race being a part of that claim. The lie is unfair irrespective.

bko 11y ago

> The woman who laughed at me was one of these customers with very discerning tastes currently causing me a lot of anxiety... With “all my education,” as my family would say, two degrees and the student loans to show for it, I was nonetheless positioned only marginally better off than my grandparents, who ran errands and did other grunt work two generations removed from where I now stood. I can't tell who the more entitled person is. The wealthy woman who believes she is entitled to have her discerning tastes met, or the author who believes she is entitled to work as an author regardless of her commercial success. No excuse to treat people who work for you poorly, but I think the entitlement runs both ways.

pjlegato 11y ago

The headline ("Two College Degrees Later, I Was Still Picking Kale For Rich People") is a statement of disappointed entitlement, of outrage over a belief that some implicit social contract has not been fulfilled. The reality is that just having "a degree" in a generic sense is no longer the magical ticket to a middle class lifestyle that it was in 1960. It's become too common and is no longer much of a differentiator in most job markets. A related issue is that many, many people have degrees in non-marketable subjects. Whatever one may think of the intrinsic value of studying history, philosophy, English literature, anthropology, art history, etc. there simply is not much demand in our society for specialists in these fields -- and so you wind up picking kale for rich people, with a pile of student loan debt to pay. We utterly fail to communicate that fact to young students entering college. We do the opposite: follow your dream, follow your passion for anthropology or whatever and it will all somehow work out in the end. Turns out that's not actually true. Telling students that it is true is what leads to indignation and this sense of entitlement. Society just doesn't need more than a tiny number of anthropologists. Whether one thinks that society ought to need more of them is irrelevant. It's disingenous to keep encouraging kids to get degrees in non-marketable subjects, to keep pretending that economic reality should not be a factor in what you choose to study.

gearoidoc 11y ago
I agree with you with one caveat: there really was a social contract in place that said something along the lines of "Finish third level and you'll walk into a job thats better than flipping burgers". That contract has been broken. I think it was stupid to begin with but it was a message very clearly sent from generations, society, government that went before. As you say, it still is. So does the writer have reason to be aggrieved? I think so. However, at some stage in an adults life they need to do some critical thinking and independently decide whats the optimal way to climb the pay ladder (legally). That critical thinking is something that is simply not taught in schools. Perhaps its not teachable at all.
- _rpd 11y ago
  > there really was a social contract in place that said something along the lines of "Finish third level and you'll walk into a job thats better than flipping burgers" Was this ever true for a Masters in Creative Writing? My understanding is that this class of degree has always been a social signal for "my family is so wealthy, I will never need to work."

amsha 11y ago

In my experience, writing (or any other art) is maybe the most downwardly-mobile profession there is. The supply of artists far outstrips the demand for art, and getting your first job often depends on proximity to industry gatekeepers. I can't speak specifically for the publishing industry, but in film and television people tend to get writing jobs through personal connections. The four paths I've seen for people who make it in film/tv: * Have a family member who gets you your first job. * Have rich parents who completely subsidize your work for a few years and provide anonymous funding for your first feature film. * Have upper-middle class parents who partially subsidize your work for a few years, and get ready to be an assistant for 3-25 years while you build connections with the business bros that determine your future. * Have lower-middle class parents. Be extraordinarily driven and ignore all material needs while you win festivals and get noticed. The lower you are on the list, the more effort it takes to maximize your probability of success. Realistically, almost no one makes it from the bottom category.

skylan_q 11y ago
Serious question: Do you feel that society should be re-adjusted/obligated in some way to make more upwardly-mobile paths for writers?
- cortesoft 11y ago
  I don't know; do you feel like the world doesn't have enough writers?
- home_boi 11y ago
  It already has. The internet has made distributing and selling text content thousands of times easier.

drags 11y ago

I think it's interesting that we're 44 comments in and nobody has commented on how race fits into this. She sees herself as someone working her way up into a freelance writing career. Her customers, her bosses and her family view her as the kind of person unlikely to do anything more than what her parents and grandparents did: bounce around through low-wage, low-prestige jobs like Instacart their entire working life. When everyone around you assumes you won't make it higher, it's hard not to wonder if they're right. And society assumes African-Americans are much less likely to achieve career success. [1] [1] See http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html for instance: "Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with African-American names was much smaller."

pjlegato 11y ago
Nobody has commented on how race fits into this because race is entirely irrelevant to the theme of the article. Her skin color is not relevant to her picking kale for a living. She's picking kale because she got two college degrees in non-marketable subjects, not because she's black. Not every topic contains a hidden narrative of latent racist oppression just waiting for an overeducated postmodernist to come along and deconstruct it, even if it does involve people of a visibly different ethnic background than their employer.
- drags 11y ago
  Race is the theme of the article: "Our national history is rife with examples of black Americans facing exclusion from labor movements, as well as general workforce discrimination. It’s not hard to see how the effects of these policies have trickled down. I see my family’s work history, rendered briefly here, as a particular kind of ingenuity necessary for black Americans."
  - pjlegato 11y ago
    It's not at all, though she seems to think it is. It's about how indignant she is that she got two college degrees and still can't get a middle class job. The headline is: "Two College Degrees Later, I Was Still Picking Kale For Rich People." That happened because she studied creative writing, a largely non-marketable subject. Her being black is not relevant. If she had studied chemical engineering or dentistry or any of a large number of other in-demand subjects instead of creative writing, she'd easily have obtained a middle class job despite being black.

swagv1 11y ago

It took her that long to recognize her own under-employment??