8 ms·

I'm a huge fan of Mike Rowe. He's done some amazing journalism with "Dirty Jobs" and his mikeroweWORKS foundation is terrific. He claims that unconditional enco

by guscost 10y ago

I'm a huge fan of Mike Rowe. He's done some amazing journalism with "Dirty Jobs" and his mikeroweWORKS foundation is terrific. He claims that unconditional encouragement toward intellectual dreams does not help most people, and argues that more kids should be pursuing professional trades. This overlaps with one of the better suggestions from this article. In general I think these are hit or miss, and maybe too academic, but the problem is a real one and it's not going to go away tomorrow. People have this notion that robots will just replace all manufacturing jobs next year or whatever, but as usual it's a lot more complex and subtle than that. And it's a cultural problem as much as an economic one. Of course I'm not able to say this from firsthand experience, having had little difficulty in school, and having accumulated enough skill with computers to find plenty of good work. And I can't really call for some given change before understanding more about the people in worse situations. I did go to a trade school though and more of those sounds like the best idea so far.

x5n1 10y ago
At the end of the day say that you paid everyone the same amount of money regardless of whether they worked or did not. And there was no additional way to make money. Maybe there was an additional barter economy where you could work for things that you could then trade for other things. How would that change things. Because now no one would have to work and would only do things if they wanted to do them. And everyone could enjoy their lives rather than be treated like disposable machines. I think that sort of future is one to look forward to. One without class or coercion. Where everyone literally has the same power over everyone else and the little trinkets and things that they produce themselves are traded by individuals with other individuals not for money but for things that they themselves made which then determines their worth. Even supposedly technically superior well paying work usually treats the workers like tools. Management which is often staffed by not the most intelligent has the most power in an organization. They stress coerce and harass people in order to get work out of them, work which is often earning the company multiples of what they are paying people. And that's how the whole economy is structured. It is still not is possible to be a technical person who is well paid yet still not feeling happy, pleasant, or even healthy. It can still be a somewhat miserable way to live your life. Not as miserable as being not intelligent and employable, but still can be problematic. The economy is general is not a healthy place for mental health or physical health, especially things like getting fired or layed off. You have to go out of your way already exhausted by work to find that.
- MawNicker 10y ago
  > Where everyone literally has the same power over everyone else I'm sympathetic to these sorts of ideals. I think you've gone too far though. I want Elon Musk to be able to exist. The working world is a lot shittier than it needs to be. It's the ultimate buyer's market. The masses are forced to sell their labor under penalty of death. The owners, however benevolent, know this. They design our jobs with it in the back of their minds. They don't want to acknowledge it directly. They know they've won more power than a meaningless game should grant any person. But I think there's a way to fix even the subtlest (and not so subtle) forms of oppression without reverting to the Harrison Bergeron society. Just guarantee everyone's basic security. I want to be able to work. Both because I like nice things and because I want to contribute to society. But frankly, I'm pretty indignant about having to do it just for my basic safety.
  - x5n1 10y ago
    http://www.biznews.com/undictated/2015/05/13/elon-musk-the-billionaire-brutal-on-himself-brutal-as-a-boss/ http://www.biznews.com/undictated/2015/05/13/elon-musk-the-b... Elon Musk can be brutal with himself and then he has to convince other people to join him and those who want to experience brutality or know how to be brutal with themselves, to meet his standard will do so. And that's about it. I don't think "forcing" this on the world is a bad thing, as it's more closer to the natural order of things in hunter gatherer societies than what we have right now. In Harrison Burgeon the problem is not that people are equal. It's that they are forced by the State to be equal. People naturally have their abilities and gifts. That's not the issue. The issue is when they can coerce other people not because of those, but because of money. And make them behave on certain terms that the people never agreed to. The people simply want money so they can maintain a certain class in society. Yes it will lead to a certain order but I don't see how that order is bad for society as a whole, compared to the current order. Other than well we won't go to space as fast or we won't get X product fast. We'll get there regardless. It's fine that we have shinning super stars, that we put in charge of other people, and we can do things quicker, better, faster, cheaper because of them. But those people actually end up making everyone around them and as a group society as a whole more miserable, to get the product or service based outcome. But I don't think those things would never get done without Elon Musk or Bill Gates or whoever. They would still get done in a different way and slower. And if we're not so brutal with exploiting everything, maybe there is enough time for that. Compare that to exploiting everything at an extremely quick rate and having to come up with solutions to those problems at quicker and quicker rates which just drives everyone and everything bonkers. It's like I want driving cars and strong AI right now. Well maybe you'll get those things right now and three generations down the line the earth won't be able to support natural life and everything will have to done artificially, and so life and everyone's behavior will be even more closely regulated, because it will all need to be produced and therefore will be owned and sold for profit. I think these are the sorts of trade-offs we're looking at with the way we're running things.
Spooky23 10y ago
Absolutely. The billable rate for journeyman auto mechanics is $100/hr. Simultaneously, we have a massive and growing glut of trained attorneys earning nothing.
- pappyo 10y ago
  I think you just pointed out the problem with vocational education. Going to law school is a vocational education, as is getting an education to become a mechanic. Vocational educations take years (sometimes almost a decade) to complete. From the time you start your vocational education to the time you finish it, the market can drastically change (see Law and nursing). That lucrative job that you thought was waiting for you...isn't. What then? What happens to mechanics if cars become fully automated? Will we need that many mechanics?
  - hellbanner 10y ago
    Yes, mechanics to build the machines to repair them in a fully automatic fashion. For a thought experiment on this, check out http://thelightsinthetunnel.com/ http://thelightsinthetunnel.com/ which explores the idea that eventually humans will stop inventing because we'll have everything we need
    - Illniyar 10y ago
      But we wont need that many mechanics, probably just the really good ones (because there is now less demand))
    - rpgmaker 10y ago
      Interesting premise, if not exactly novel, but some could argue that, excepting some needed advances in medicine, we do have everything we need and we're still not satisfied. It comes down to this, will humanity ever design/invent something universally recognized as being perfect? I don't think so, I will still try to check out the book though.
    - darpa_escapee 10y ago
      The assembly process is becoming more and more automated. Some newer cars need to be taken to licensed mechanics, essentially squeezing independent mechanics out of the market.
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Tangential, but related: I don't know Mike Rowe's work that much, nor do I follow him. But a few friends over the last year or two have shared some of his social posts and essays. Dang. The guy can write. If the rest of his work is of the same quality as his seemingly off-the-cuff social stuff, he's worth paying attention to.
brightball 10y ago
Absolutely true. It's not a matter of intelligence it's a matter of trust. Most employers I know value the employees who they know they can trust and rely on much more than the ones who think they're smarter than everyone else. There are needs to be filled. HVAC, plumbing, electrical, carpentry, general contracting, maintenance, janitorial, painting, roofing, auto repair, etc. You don't have to be a genius or close to it to do any of the jobs. What you do have to be to be successful long term is on time and trustworthy. You do a good job at a fair price and show up on time every day your customers will be happy and they will recommend you to other people. Most of the people I know in these fields who meet that criteria have more business than they know what to do with and actually make more money than I personally do in my "intelligent" tech job. I could make more if I moved but so could they, so that's a wash. What blows my mind talking to these guys is that they all talk to me like they believe I'm smarter than them...and it's odd. They are perfectly successful business people but there is just the aura of talking to people who do something that you don't know much about I guess.
- galfarragem 10y ago
  I confirm everything you said. My father, working as a tradesman, has more work that he can handle so I use to help him during work peaks (I've a non-STEM degree). You don't need to be a genious, only trustworthy. The problem IMO is that to be trustworthy you need to enjoy your trade and that is not exactly a personal choice (specially on the short term). Educated people are addicted to be challenged and to compete not to routinely execute stuff. The low competition on trades is a symptom of a massive need of talent and huge opportunities.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
> I'm a huge fan of Mike Rowe. He's done some amazing journalism with "Dirty Jobs" and his mikeroweWORKS foundation is terrific. He claims that unconditional encouragement toward intellectual dreams does not help most people, and argues that more kids should be pursuing professional trades. Then maybe he should stand up for the interests of trades workers. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/mike-rowes-dirty-job/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/mike-rowes-dirty-job/
- Kalium 10y ago
  It's very likely he's more more interested in helping people than in flailing uselessly against "capitalists and their political allies". Rowe's the kind of person who cares about results. Jacobin authors care about posturing.

by guscost 10y ago

x5n1 10y ago

At the end of the day say that you paid everyone the same amount of money regardless of whether they worked or did not. And there was no additional way to make money. Maybe there was an additional barter economy where you could work for things that you could then trade for other things. How would that change things. Because now no one would have to work and would only do things if they wanted to do them. And everyone could enjoy their lives rather than be treated like disposable machines. I think that sort of future is one to look forward to. One without class or coercion. Where everyone literally has the same power over everyone else and the little trinkets and things that they produce themselves are traded by individuals with other individuals not for money but for things that they themselves made which then determines their worth. Even supposedly technically superior well paying work usually treats the workers like tools. Management which is often staffed by not the most intelligent has the most power in an organization. They stress coerce and harass people in order to get work out of them, work which is often earning the company multiples of what they are paying people. And that's how the whole economy is structured. It is still not is possible to be a technical person who is well paid yet still not feeling happy, pleasant, or even healthy. It can still be a somewhat miserable way to live your life. Not as miserable as being not intelligent and employable, but still can be problematic. The economy is general is not a healthy place for mental health or physical health, especially things like getting fired or layed off. You have to go out of your way already exhausted by work to find that.

MawNicker 10y ago
> Where everyone literally has the same power over everyone else I'm sympathetic to these sorts of ideals. I think you've gone too far though. I want Elon Musk to be able to exist. The working world is a lot shittier than it needs to be. It's the ultimate buyer's market. The masses are forced to sell their labor under penalty of death. The owners, however benevolent, know this. They design our jobs with it in the back of their minds. They don't want to acknowledge it directly. They know they've won more power than a meaningless game should grant any person. But I think there's a way to fix even the subtlest (and not so subtle) forms of oppression without reverting to the Harrison Bergeron society. Just guarantee everyone's basic security. I want to be able to work. Both because I like nice things and because I want to contribute to society. But frankly, I'm pretty indignant about having to do it just for my basic safety.
- x5n1 10y ago
  http://www.biznews.com/undictated/2015/05/13/elon-musk-the-billionaire-brutal-on-himself-brutal-as-a-boss/ http://www.biznews.com/undictated/2015/05/13/elon-musk-the-b... Elon Musk can be brutal with himself and then he has to convince other people to join him and those who want to experience brutality or know how to be brutal with themselves, to meet his standard will do so. And that's about it. I don't think "forcing" this on the world is a bad thing, as it's more closer to the natural order of things in hunter gatherer societies than what we have right now. In Harrison Burgeon the problem is not that people are equal. It's that they are forced by the State to be equal. People naturally have their abilities and gifts. That's not the issue. The issue is when they can coerce other people not because of those, but because of money. And make them behave on certain terms that the people never agreed to. The people simply want money so they can maintain a certain class in society. Yes it will lead to a certain order but I don't see how that order is bad for society as a whole, compared to the current order. Other than well we won't go to space as fast or we won't get X product fast. We'll get there regardless. It's fine that we have shinning super stars, that we put in charge of other people, and we can do things quicker, better, faster, cheaper because of them. But those people actually end up making everyone around them and as a group society as a whole more miserable, to get the product or service based outcome. But I don't think those things would never get done without Elon Musk or Bill Gates or whoever. They would still get done in a different way and slower. And if we're not so brutal with exploiting everything, maybe there is enough time for that. Compare that to exploiting everything at an extremely quick rate and having to come up with solutions to those problems at quicker and quicker rates which just drives everyone and everything bonkers. It's like I want driving cars and strong AI right now. Well maybe you'll get those things right now and three generations down the line the earth won't be able to support natural life and everything will have to done artificially, and so life and everyone's behavior will be even more closely regulated, because it will all need to be produced and therefore will be owned and sold for profit. I think these are the sorts of trade-offs we're looking at with the way we're running things.

Spooky23 10y ago

Absolutely. The billable rate for journeyman auto mechanics is $100/hr. Simultaneously, we have a massive and growing glut of trained attorneys earning nothing.

pappyo 10y ago
I think you just pointed out the problem with vocational education. Going to law school is a vocational education, as is getting an education to become a mechanic. Vocational educations take years (sometimes almost a decade) to complete. From the time you start your vocational education to the time you finish it, the market can drastically change (see Law and nursing). That lucrative job that you thought was waiting for you...isn't. What then? What happens to mechanics if cars become fully automated? Will we need that many mechanics?
- hellbanner 10y ago
  Yes, mechanics to build the machines to repair them in a fully automatic fashion. For a thought experiment on this, check out http://thelightsinthetunnel.com/ http://thelightsinthetunnel.com/ which explores the idea that eventually humans will stop inventing because we'll have everything we need
  - Illniyar 10y ago
    But we wont need that many mechanics, probably just the really good ones (because there is now less demand))
  - rpgmaker 10y ago
    Interesting premise, if not exactly novel, but some could argue that, excepting some needed advances in medicine, we do have everything we need and we're still not satisfied. It comes down to this, will humanity ever design/invent something universally recognized as being perfect? I don't think so, I will still try to check out the book though.
  - darpa_escapee 10y ago
    The assembly process is becoming more and more automated. Some newer cars need to be taken to licensed mechanics, essentially squeezing independent mechanics out of the market.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

Tangential, but related: I don't know Mike Rowe's work that much, nor do I follow him. But a few friends over the last year or two have shared some of his social posts and essays. Dang. The guy can write. If the rest of his work is of the same quality as his seemingly off-the-cuff social stuff, he's worth paying attention to.

brightball 10y ago

Absolutely true. It's not a matter of intelligence it's a matter of trust. Most employers I know value the employees who they know they can trust and rely on much more than the ones who think they're smarter than everyone else. There are needs to be filled. HVAC, plumbing, electrical, carpentry, general contracting, maintenance, janitorial, painting, roofing, auto repair, etc. You don't have to be a genius or close to it to do any of the jobs. What you do have to be to be successful long term is on time and trustworthy. You do a good job at a fair price and show up on time every day your customers will be happy and they will recommend you to other people. Most of the people I know in these fields who meet that criteria have more business than they know what to do with and actually make more money than I personally do in my "intelligent" tech job. I could make more if I moved but so could they, so that's a wash. What blows my mind talking to these guys is that they all talk to me like they believe I'm smarter than them...and it's odd. They are perfectly successful business people but there is just the aura of talking to people who do something that you don't know much about I guess.

galfarragem 10y ago
I confirm everything you said. My father, working as a tradesman, has more work that he can handle so I use to help him during work peaks (I've a non-STEM degree). You don't need to be a genious, only trustworthy. The problem IMO is that to be trustworthy you need to enjoy your trade and that is not exactly a personal choice (specially on the short term). Educated people are addicted to be challenged and to compete not to routinely execute stuff. The low competition on trades is a symptom of a massive need of talent and huge opportunities.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

> I'm a huge fan of Mike Rowe. He's done some amazing journalism with "Dirty Jobs" and his mikeroweWORKS foundation is terrific. He claims that unconditional encouragement toward intellectual dreams does not help most people, and argues that more kids should be pursuing professional trades. Then maybe he should stand up for the interests of trades workers. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/mike-rowes-dirty-job/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/mike-rowes-dirty-job/

Kalium 10y ago
It's very likely he's more more interested in helping people than in flailing uselessly against "capitalists and their political allies". Rowe's the kind of person who cares about results. Jacobin authors care about posturing.