> IMO this is wrong: Most any banker can become a garbageman. They are way overpaid, that's why there is a lottery for the jobs. Is the reverse true? The artic

> IMO this is wrong: Most any banker can become a garbageman. They are way overpaid, that's why there is a lottery for the jobs. Is the reverse true? The article actually states exactly this as part of it's "bullshit jobs" discussion. > Relying on strike time to tragedy is complete BS. As we saw in 2007/8 when banker messed up the consequences are indeed harsh. You're mixing up a strike with a very complex series of events that can arguably be described somewhere on a scale between "messed up" and "maliciously and fraudulently manipulated markets for their own profiteering at the expense of everyone else". However, determining exactly where on that scale they sit is a much bigger discussion than HN allows in a comment. Eitherway, the article again compares a garbage collection strike with a banking strike, which is a fairer comparison, and suggests that the biggest losers from that strike were the bankers.