4 ms·
I think we're merely highlighting the distinction between what level of responsivity a job actually requires. Those who deal with things that require near-immed
by citation_please 8y ago
I think we're merely highlighting the distinction between what level of responsivity a job actually requires. Those who deal with things that require near-immediate attention (janitors, sys admins, doctors) would stop the world. Everyone else the world can (by definition of responsibility) continue without any issue for awhile, and maybe at worst stagnate.
I think this might be a completely orthogonal concept to measuring how "bull shit" a job is, despite how often it gets brought up in this context.
- perfunctory 8y agoThe article actually touches on this point. It doesn't claim that we don't need financial system. On the contrary. In fact, while bankers were striking people recreated their own financial system of some sort. Only it turned out you could do it more cheaply without mega bonuses.
- deathhand 8y agoBankers is a very broad term. "High financiers" are bankers and so are people who work at a bank who do not get 'mega bonuses'. The article was talking about the latter.
- foxhop 8y agoI would like to add farmers, plumbers, utilities workers, and anyone who keeps ISP networks online, to your list. There are very few doing the essential jobs.
- citation_please 8y agoI agree with your list! Except with your use of the word essential, because I was trying to draw attention to the fact that these jobs are highly reactive, which I think is orthogonal to how essential they are to society (i.e. not "bull shit"). As a counter-example, I think everyone who is currently working to reduce environmentally-damaging emissions of industrial processes are essential to society, but if they all disappeared tomorrow it would have little immediate impact.