5 ms·

I agree with this sentiment. There is a lot of work that needs doing. There are also a lot of parents out there with young children who could use a nanny. There

I agree with this sentiment. There is a lot of work that needs doing. There are also a lot of parents out there with young children who could use a nanny. There's a need for more therapists, or just people to talk to. There's a lot of work that needs doing. There's an abundance of people to do the work, and I feel like we have plenty of natural resources. It seems to me that we could build housing for everyone, we have the capability to do it. It's just that our economic model isn't about the betterment of manking, providing the people what they need, etc. If you told an unemployed man that he could have guaranteed food, clothing, medical care, lodging and basic income for his family if he goes work a job where he builds houses for other family in need, I think that would be a very appealing offer.

nico_h 10y ago
Heck, even if you made that proposition to a fast food worker that he could do meaningful work instead of smelling like fried stuff all the time and always be worried about working enough hours for a crappy boss and no future, or to a janitor that he could help someone instead of cleaning pee all day, maybe they would do that instead. Maybe even to an office drone, who knows. Right now people work because otherwise they die, socially in civilized continental Europe, possibly literally in "modern" America (and possibly the UK).
- WoodenChair 10y ago
  > Heck, even if you made that proposition to a fast food worker that he could do meaningful work instead of smelling like fried stuff all the time and always be worried about working enough hours for a crappy boss and no future, or to a janitor that he could help someone instead of cleaning pee all day, maybe they would do that instead. Maybe even to an office drone, who knows. You imply that being a fast food worker, janitor, or "office drone" is not meaningful work. To many people it is. Your comment comes across as demeaning.
  - snoman 10y ago
    I'm willing to give GP the benefit of the doubt and was only speaking of the people who don't like, or are not suited for, those positions. I think there's enough people that fit that description in any reasonably sized profession to make it a valid statement in that context.
    - reflexive 10y ago
      Almost by definition, there are aspects of work that you don't like. The trick is to find meaning in your work so that you have the strength to complete it. The post seems to be suggesting that we should just eliminate all of the "least desirable" jobs, which is a fine idea as long as you realize that the next tier of jobs will then immediately become the "least desirable".
      - vehementi 10y ago
        No it's just saying some people aren't happy with it and could do something else. Let's not focus on that bit, hey? Let's talk about the main point?
        reflexive 10y ago
        Everyone could be happier doing something else. The main point is: if you want other people to maintain the apartment building where you live, drive you around on the bus, grow your food and deliver it to the supermarket - you need to be prepared to do something useful in return.
  - nico_h 10y ago
    "Being" a fast food worker, a janitor or "office drone" is not socially nor financially rewarded to a measure commensurate with the toll exerted on the soul or body of the human _occupying the function_. Also, you're not your job, you're employed, however tenuously by the fast food industry. As I said in another comment, "being" a fast food worker is not "feeding people". Working in a soup kitchen is feeding people. The janitorial function is a necessity in any specialized society which doesn't reward you for cleaning after yourself. And you really have never heard of someone in an office job that is soul sucking? Like say people organizing layoffs, or accepting/denying coverage at HMO, or call center employees trying to ensare retiree into getting extra fees for services they never use etc... Don't you think society would be better served if these kind of jobs could not find warm bodies because there was more morally satisfying and equally (or better) financially rewarding proposition around?
- reflexive 10y ago
  if you made that proposition to a fast food worker that he could do meaningful work instead of smelling like fried stuff all the time and always be worried about working enough hours for a crappy boss and no future, or to a janitor that he could help someone instead of cleaning pee all day, maybe they would do that instead Are you saying that making food for people is meaningless? That cleaning doesn't help anyone? Humans are always going to regard someone as being "at the bottom", just because that's how we think.
  - j2bax 10y ago
    How meaningful are jobs that could fairly easily be automated out of existence if we didn't feel the need to occupy every human?
    - reflexive 10y ago
      The reason those jobs haven't been automated is because automating a job is an expensive and difficult process, not out of charity for the people doing those jobs. I've often thought about how meaningful my own work is, in the sense that: what if people just didn't buy my company's stupid product? Would anybody be worse off? Not really. The only meaning I've found is the satisfaction of doing my job well, on its own terms - whether that's sweeping the floors at a burger joint, or making software builds.
  - nico_h 10y ago
    I'm saying that churning out barely edible mater for a highly structured organization that pays you less that living wages and provides no benefits of any kind (maybe a free meal once in a while?) and treat you less well that the consumables that comes in, is not something that people aspire to. If you want to meaningfully feed people, I believe it's called working at a soup kitchen. Usually staffed by volunteers. The reward for most meaningful work is often only in the human element. It sure ain't in the pocketbook. Working in the fast food industry is not "making food for people," it's being a cog in a machine that transform the maximum amount of uncaring for its employees and products into the maximum of profits. Janitorial work is necessary but not paid in proportion to the social good it provides. And I take offense at your comment about "Humans are always going to regard someone as being "at the bottom", just because that's how we think.", it's not human nature, it's a social construct.
knieveltech 10y ago
There is no need for additional construction to meet housing demand. In the continental US there are something like 6 empty units for every homeless person in the country. In turn this means there is no pent up demand for building materials, so putting people to work in forestry, quarry, cement, steel, etc is also a non-starter. Global food surplus indicates there is no pressing need to put additional people to work in agriculture. I'm not certain that there is pent up demand for 3.5 million new nannies or therapists in the country, which is a relevant number as that's roughly how many OTR truckers that are on the cusp of losing their livelihoods to automation. There simply isn't enough work to go around.
- stale2002 10y ago
  There are empty houses, but not in places where people want to live. There is absolutely a housing shortage in popular metropolitan areas (take your pick) . If there wasn't, then prices wouldn't be so high.
  - knieveltech 10y ago
    Popular because people are clumping in areas that have jobs...
    - stale2002 10y ago
      Also because they like those areas? Many people dream of moving to New York. And they would dream that with out without the jobs.
      - zardo 10y ago
        It may more or less boil down to lots of movies and television shows being set in New York.
        forgetsusername 10y ago
        >It may more or less boil down to lots of movies and television shows being set in New York Movies and TV shows are filmed in NY because it's a world class, iconic city. It didn't become that because of media.
mikepurvis 10y ago
There are a lot of musicians, playwrights, authors, and visual artists of various stripes who would love to practice their craft full time but work crappy jobs to pay the bills. And don't even get me started on large-scale planet-care projects— is there a way we can pay people to reclaim destroyed farmland, to grow things locally and organically, replant forests, study and clean up the ocean garbage patches, etc etc.

nico_h 10y ago

Heck, even if you made that proposition to a fast food worker that he could do meaningful work instead of smelling like fried stuff all the time and always be worried about working enough hours for a crappy boss and no future, or to a janitor that he could help someone instead of cleaning pee all day, maybe they would do that instead. Maybe even to an office drone, who knows. Right now people work because otherwise they die, socially in civilized continental Europe, possibly literally in "modern" America (and possibly the UK).

WoodenChair 10y ago
> Heck, even if you made that proposition to a fast food worker that he could do meaningful work instead of smelling like fried stuff all the time and always be worried about working enough hours for a crappy boss and no future, or to a janitor that he could help someone instead of cleaning pee all day, maybe they would do that instead. Maybe even to an office drone, who knows. You imply that being a fast food worker, janitor, or "office drone" is not meaningful work. To many people it is. Your comment comes across as demeaning.
- snoman 10y ago
  I'm willing to give GP the benefit of the doubt and was only speaking of the people who don't like, or are not suited for, those positions. I think there's enough people that fit that description in any reasonably sized profession to make it a valid statement in that context.
  - reflexive 10y ago
    Almost by definition, there are aspects of work that you don't like. The trick is to find meaning in your work so that you have the strength to complete it. The post seems to be suggesting that we should just eliminate all of the "least desirable" jobs, which is a fine idea as long as you realize that the next tier of jobs will then immediately become the "least desirable".
    - vehementi 10y ago
      No it's just saying some people aren't happy with it and could do something else. Let's not focus on that bit, hey? Let's talk about the main point?
      - reflexive 10y ago
        Everyone could be happier doing something else. The main point is: if you want other people to maintain the apartment building where you live, drive you around on the bus, grow your food and deliver it to the supermarket - you need to be prepared to do something useful in return.
- nico_h 10y ago
  "Being" a fast food worker, a janitor or "office drone" is not socially nor financially rewarded to a measure commensurate with the toll exerted on the soul or body of the human _occupying the function_. Also, you're not your job, you're employed, however tenuously by the fast food industry. As I said in another comment, "being" a fast food worker is not "feeding people". Working in a soup kitchen is feeding people. The janitorial function is a necessity in any specialized society which doesn't reward you for cleaning after yourself. And you really have never heard of someone in an office job that is soul sucking? Like say people organizing layoffs, or accepting/denying coverage at HMO, or call center employees trying to ensare retiree into getting extra fees for services they never use etc... Don't you think society would be better served if these kind of jobs could not find warm bodies because there was more morally satisfying and equally (or better) financially rewarding proposition around?
reflexive 10y ago
if you made that proposition to a fast food worker that he could do meaningful work instead of smelling like fried stuff all the time and always be worried about working enough hours for a crappy boss and no future, or to a janitor that he could help someone instead of cleaning pee all day, maybe they would do that instead Are you saying that making food for people is meaningless? That cleaning doesn't help anyone? Humans are always going to regard someone as being "at the bottom", just because that's how we think.
- j2bax 10y ago
  How meaningful are jobs that could fairly easily be automated out of existence if we didn't feel the need to occupy every human?
  - reflexive 10y ago
    The reason those jobs haven't been automated is because automating a job is an expensive and difficult process, not out of charity for the people doing those jobs. I've often thought about how meaningful my own work is, in the sense that: what if people just didn't buy my company's stupid product? Would anybody be worse off? Not really. The only meaning I've found is the satisfaction of doing my job well, on its own terms - whether that's sweeping the floors at a burger joint, or making software builds.
- nico_h 10y ago
  I'm saying that churning out barely edible mater for a highly structured organization that pays you less that living wages and provides no benefits of any kind (maybe a free meal once in a while?) and treat you less well that the consumables that comes in, is not something that people aspire to. If you want to meaningfully feed people, I believe it's called working at a soup kitchen. Usually staffed by volunteers. The reward for most meaningful work is often only in the human element. It sure ain't in the pocketbook. Working in the fast food industry is not "making food for people," it's being a cog in a machine that transform the maximum amount of uncaring for its employees and products into the maximum of profits. Janitorial work is necessary but not paid in proportion to the social good it provides. And I take offense at your comment about "Humans are always going to regard someone as being "at the bottom", just because that's how we think.", it's not human nature, it's a social construct.

knieveltech 10y ago

There is no need for additional construction to meet housing demand. In the continental US there are something like 6 empty units for every homeless person in the country. In turn this means there is no pent up demand for building materials, so putting people to work in forestry, quarry, cement, steel, etc is also a non-starter. Global food surplus indicates there is no pressing need to put additional people to work in agriculture. I'm not certain that there is pent up demand for 3.5 million new nannies or therapists in the country, which is a relevant number as that's roughly how many OTR truckers that are on the cusp of losing their livelihoods to automation. There simply isn't enough work to go around.

stale2002 10y ago
There are empty houses, but not in places where people want to live. There is absolutely a housing shortage in popular metropolitan areas (take your pick) . If there wasn't, then prices wouldn't be so high.
- knieveltech 10y ago
  Popular because people are clumping in areas that have jobs...
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Also because they like those areas? Many people dream of moving to New York. And they would dream that with out without the jobs.
    - zardo 10y ago
      It may more or less boil down to lots of movies and television shows being set in New York.
      - forgetsusername 10y ago
        >It may more or less boil down to lots of movies and television shows being set in New York Movies and TV shows are filmed in NY because it's a world class, iconic city. It didn't become that because of media.

mikepurvis 10y ago

There are a lot of musicians, playwrights, authors, and visual artists of various stripes who would love to practice their craft full time but work crappy jobs to pay the bills. And don't even get me started on large-scale planet-care projects— is there a way we can pay people to reclaim destroyed farmland, to grow things locally and organically, replant forests, study and clean up the ocean garbage patches, etc etc.