3 ms·

This is a fairly silly list. Consider: "Reading comprehension": at a moderate level that's basically everyone in the industrialized world. At a high level, wha

This is a fairly silly list. Consider: "Reading comprehension": at a moderate level that's basically everyone in the industrialized world. At a high level, what are the jobs where this is going to be the skill that makes a difference, as opposed to prior training and learning ability re: the things you've read? Consider: "Management of personnel": in a world in which middle management are the first to be laid off, it's hard not to think that the allegedly high incomes are unstable and/or only for the best performers. Consider: "Service orientation." Uh, like in the service industry? Sure, that's "employable," for a can't-make-rent sense of the term. Generally, the list seemingly fails to take into account the extent to which a skill is already saturated. It's striking, for example, that the top few are skills characteristically developed in advanced degree training in the humanities, law, etc., who haven't, shall way say, had the best few years in the job market lately, due to rampant overproduction...

sopooneo 9y ago
My experience with reading comprehension is that it is moderate across the board in white collar jobs. But general writing ability is horrific. Almost half of the professionals I have worked with seem unable to put coherent thoughts into words.
- paultopia 9y ago
  Mine too---it's striking that writing is so much lower than reading comprehension. (Maybe that makes some sense, if employers care so little about writing that they routinely hire those who can't do it.)
nopinsight 9y ago
High level reading comprehension is certainly beneficial for understanding complex matters and making decisions based on them. Does an average person in industrialized nations have reading skills at the level of a partner at law firms or a successful consultant?
- paultopia 9y ago
  Surely not. But are the law firm partner or consultant really differentiated from the people who didn't get those jobs by their reading comprehension?
coldtea 9y ago
>Consider: "Reading comprehension": at a moderate level that's basically everyone in the industrialized world. And yet, even HN comments (by native english speakers) illustrate every day that this is not the case. Except if we have a very low bar for that "moderate level". In any case, when they that you need "those job skills" they don't mean "you need them in the average level that everybody in the industrialized world more or less has them". The mean you if if you're good at them, you have an advantage. >it's hard not to think that the allegedly high incomes are unstable and/or only for the best performers. Isn't that the whole point of the list? It's not like they say "any kind of skill in Management of personnel". They say you need to be good (best performer) in it. >Consider: "Service orientation." Uh, like in the service industry? No, like everywhere it is applicable: "Service orientation, aka personality traits and a predisposition to be helpful, thoughtful, considerate and cooperative". (Besides, there are extremely lucrative jobs in the service industry. Service industry doesn't mean being a waiter. It can also mean e.g. running or owing hotels).
- paultopia 9y ago
  Re: average level vs good at them: part of the problem is that they mix skills that almost everyone has to a certain degree (like reading comprehension) with skills that very few people possess (like coding). Re: any kind of skill vs being the best performer: they're clearly not referring to best performer skill. Part of their analysis is based on "Time to enter [which] depends on how much training it takes to enter the jobs in which the skill is important." So the level of skill has to be something like entry-level skill for the lowest level of job using the skill. Otherwise the time to enter measure would be meaningless.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Re: average level vs good at them: part of the problem is that they mix skills that almost everyone has to a certain degree (like reading comprehension) with skills that very few people possess (like coding). If some skills are a boon to success, why would they be constrained to be one or the other type? Some would be common in most (but not great in the majority, like reading comprehension skills), others would be rarer (like coding or managing people). >Re: any kind of skill vs being the best performer: they're clearly not referring to best performer skill. Part of their analysis is based on "Time to enter [which] depends on how much training it takes to enter the jobs in which the skill is important." So the level of skill has to be something like entry-level skill for the lowest level of job using the skill. "Entry-level skills for the lowest level of job using the skill" can still be compared relatively to others entering the same job -- so a ranking as being the best performer among your competition still makes sense. Clearly they didn't mean you have to be best in the world, or among the top in your country in those skills. Just better than most you're competing against.

sopooneo 9y ago

My experience with reading comprehension is that it is moderate across the board in white collar jobs. But general writing ability is horrific. Almost half of the professionals I have worked with seem unable to put coherent thoughts into words.

paultopia 9y ago
Mine too---it's striking that writing is so much lower than reading comprehension. (Maybe that makes some sense, if employers care so little about writing that they routinely hire those who can't do it.)

nopinsight 9y ago

High level reading comprehension is certainly beneficial for understanding complex matters and making decisions based on them. Does an average person in industrialized nations have reading skills at the level of a partner at law firms or a successful consultant?

paultopia 9y ago
Surely not. But are the law firm partner or consultant really differentiated from the people who didn't get those jobs by their reading comprehension?

coldtea 9y ago

>Consider: "Reading comprehension": at a moderate level that's basically everyone in the industrialized world. And yet, even HN comments (by native english speakers) illustrate every day that this is not the case. Except if we have a very low bar for that "moderate level". In any case, when they that you need "those job skills" they don't mean "you need them in the average level that everybody in the industrialized world more or less has them". The mean you if if you're good at them, you have an advantage. >it's hard not to think that the allegedly high incomes are unstable and/or only for the best performers. Isn't that the whole point of the list? It's not like they say "any kind of skill in Management of personnel". They say you need to be good (best performer) in it. >Consider: "Service orientation." Uh, like in the service industry? No, like everywhere it is applicable: "Service orientation, aka personality traits and a predisposition to be helpful, thoughtful, considerate and cooperative". (Besides, there are extremely lucrative jobs in the service industry. Service industry doesn't mean being a waiter. It can also mean e.g. running or owing hotels).

paultopia 9y ago
Re: average level vs good at them: part of the problem is that they mix skills that almost everyone has to a certain degree (like reading comprehension) with skills that very few people possess (like coding). Re: any kind of skill vs being the best performer: they're clearly not referring to best performer skill. Part of their analysis is based on "Time to enter [which] depends on how much training it takes to enter the jobs in which the skill is important." So the level of skill has to be something like entry-level skill for the lowest level of job using the skill. Otherwise the time to enter measure would be meaningless.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Re: average level vs good at them: part of the problem is that they mix skills that almost everyone has to a certain degree (like reading comprehension) with skills that very few people possess (like coding). If some skills are a boon to success, why would they be constrained to be one or the other type? Some would be common in most (but not great in the majority, like reading comprehension skills), others would be rarer (like coding or managing people). >Re: any kind of skill vs being the best performer: they're clearly not referring to best performer skill. Part of their analysis is based on "Time to enter [which] depends on how much training it takes to enter the jobs in which the skill is important." So the level of skill has to be something like entry-level skill for the lowest level of job using the skill. "Entry-level skills for the lowest level of job using the skill" can still be compared relatively to others entering the same job -- so a ranking as being the best performer among your competition still makes sense. Clearly they didn't mean you have to be best in the world, or among the top in your country in those skills. Just better than most you're competing against.