3 ms·

Future of Work: More education is not the solution for everyone

5 points by seapunk 8y ago

ddingus 8y ago
Upvoted this one because it centers on a discussion we, as a people, need to have. I'm in the USA, please take the comments in that context. For now, I want to model that discussion using just one point from the many good ones in this piece: "In the past, attractive jobs for "low-skilled" workers were concentrated in 2 worlds: factories and bureaucracies. Alas those are precisely the jobs that have been destroyed by globalization and technology." Attractive has very different meanings, depending on one's perspective. On a basic level, given the difficulty over half the nation is experiencing economically right now, attractive means work that is not hell to do, or at least work one can do, and having that work yield enough income to fund the basics of a modest, reasonable life. Housing, health care, clothing, food, etc... A whole lot of people can be happy, given their work gets them through the basics. Many people don't need much, yet they labor a lot and have trouble meeting those needs. Someone working a 40, getting the work done, not being a pain in the ass, etc... should be able to live modestly and reasonably. Right now, just that is attractive. Would be nice to raise that bar some, but just meeting it for now seems appropriate. When that doesn't happen for too many people, it costs all of us. No matter what we do with software and higher technology at present the basic labors need to get done, and those people doing those basic labors are in real trouble economically too. From my perspective as a concerned American, making that happen more than it is right now, is damn attractive. I think it would help some to improve on "worth perception" regarding basic labor. Again, it has to get done, or we are doing it ourselves, and I don't want to do that. It's not being lazy at all. No. It's that I can do higher order things, and when I can't do those higher order things, for lack of money, or time spent on basic labors, I don't perform as well as I could. I suspect many readers here are in a similar scenario. The cost of that "do it myself" scenario is pretty high too. Seems to me, that is one way to improve on the perception of what basic labor is worth. It's not just factories and bureaucracies. Back in the 70's, for example, one parent was a janitor, and that funded a basic, modest, dignified life, and a happy family. Didn't have much, but didn't need much. The basics were there. Odd jobs, people working things out, got many of the extras done. A grandparent was an appliance repair person, self-employed. That funded a better standard of living. I could go on here, but the basic point is costs and risk exposure is much greater today, while wages did not match up. I really value the people who do basic labor for me. I want them to have happy families not in real need. How can we improve on that "worth perception?" Seems to me, the basic idea of, "anyone can do it" boiling down to rock bottom wages is broken. Sure, almost anyone can do the basics. Do they want to, and can they be doing some other thing worth more to all of us? Even if that isn't true, those families are in real need today. Maybe we can make it actually cheaper to live? Or, maybe people getting assistance / help, is the norm, and if so, why shame them so much about it? I live in a smaller town right now. People know people, and that basic dignity can be seen, or when it's not there, it can be seen, and it hurts. Nobody wants it that way, yet it is that way. Having lived big city, this is all worse. People don't know one another, and value perception goes down, as does humanizing others, their scenario, issues. Thoughts?

5 points by seapunk 8y ago

Upvoted this one because it centers on a discussion we, as a people, need to have. I'm in the USA, please take the comments in that context. For now, I want to model that discussion using just one point from the many good ones in this piece: "In the past, attractive jobs for "low-skilled" workers were concentrated in 2 worlds: factories and bureaucracies. Alas those are precisely the jobs that have been destroyed by globalization and technology." Attractive has very different meanings, depending on one's perspective. On a basic level, given the difficulty over half the nation is experiencing economically right now, attractive means work that is not hell to do, or at least work one can do, and having that work yield enough income to fund the basics of a modest, reasonable life. Housing, health care, clothing, food, etc... A whole lot of people can be happy, given their work gets them through the basics. Many people don't need much, yet they labor a lot and have trouble meeting those needs. Someone working a 40, getting the work done, not being a pain in the ass, etc... should be able to live modestly and reasonably. Right now, just that is attractive. Would be nice to raise that bar some, but just meeting it for now seems appropriate. When that doesn't happen for too many people, it costs all of us. No matter what we do with software and higher technology at present the basic labors need to get done, and those people doing those basic labors are in real trouble economically too. From my perspective as a concerned American, making that happen more than it is right now, is damn attractive. I think it would help some to improve on "worth perception" regarding basic labor. Again, it has to get done, or we are doing it ourselves, and I don't want to do that. It's not being lazy at all. No. It's that I can do higher order things, and when I can't do those higher order things, for lack of money, or time spent on basic labors, I don't perform as well as I could. I suspect many readers here are in a similar scenario. The cost of that "do it myself" scenario is pretty high too. Seems to me, that is one way to improve on the perception of what basic labor is worth. It's not just factories and bureaucracies. Back in the 70's, for example, one parent was a janitor, and that funded a basic, modest, dignified life, and a happy family. Didn't have much, but didn't need much. The basics were there. Odd jobs, people working things out, got many of the extras done. A grandparent was an appliance repair person, self-employed. That funded a better standard of living. I could go on here, but the basic point is costs and risk exposure is much greater today, while wages did not match up. I really value the people who do basic labor for me. I want them to have happy families not in real need. How can we improve on that "worth perception?" Seems to me, the basic idea of, "anyone can do it" boiling down to rock bottom wages is broken. Sure, almost anyone can do the basics. Do they want to, and can they be doing some other thing worth more to all of us? Even if that isn't true, those families are in real need today. Maybe we can make it actually cheaper to live? Or, maybe people getting assistance / help, is the norm, and if so, why shame them so much about it? I live in a smaller town right now. People know people, and that basic dignity can be seen, or when it's not there, it can be seen, and it hurts. Nobody wants it that way, yet it is that way. Having lived big city, this is all worse. People don't know one another, and value perception goes down, as does humanizing others, their scenario, issues. Thoughts?