4 ms·

> I was calm and just enjoyed the time while I was looking for a new job. I have money saved. For a lot of people that will have been an extremely stressful sit

> I was calm and just enjoyed the time while I was looking for a new job. I have money saved. For a lot of people that will have been an extremely stressful situation. That kind of stress is related to bad-decision taking Without that phenomenon (the "must get a job very soon / now" mindset), loads of low paid / unskilled positions would just never be filled. No-one would work crap jobs. It feels to me like the economy is fundamentally structured around that concept, that most people don't have "FU money" and can't just sit around waiting for better employment situations. To me, it feels like the alternative, even if you could fix it, would result in eliminating swathes of currently provided services. Take food delivery as an example - the economics don't work out, because the driver and restauranteur would be paid about as well as the person ordering, or perhaps even more (because it's less desirable work) and it'd be hilariously expensive as a result. Can we fix it?

kibwen 8y ago
This attitude seems alien to me. If there's a job that nobody wants to do, the employer should offer more compensation. If that raises the price of the service such that the venture is no longer profitable, then that indicates a fundamental lack of demand for that service relative to its cost. No poor person should be expected to subsidize the comfort of the higher classes via their desperation.
- pm90 8y ago
  > No poor person should be expected to subsidize the comfort of the higher classes via their desperation. Why do you think sweatshops exist?
  - tathougies 8y ago
    Because the cost of labor / covering up illegal hiring is lower than the cost of the item produced?
- esotericn 8y ago
  It's not an attitude - I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying. It's what I see when I look out of my window. That is to say, how I think the economy actually works. Basically no-one with a meaningful amount of capital takes low end jobs, because they don't have to. They can sit, read, wait, research, calmly consider, study, and find a way out. They have negotiating power (which is more than just telling a prospective boss a higher number - it's walking away, doing something else entirely, not even showing up to begin with). Poor people can't do that, which is why they take jobs that barely pay subsistence. They have no other choice and need to take the job that pays them _now_ with the skills they have _now_. Fundamentally this is why learning to spend less than you earn is probably the most important thing anyone can ever do. If you ever spend all of your money and have no access to credit, your freedom essentially disappears as you're forced to do almost anything someone with money tells you (legal or not).
  - sershe 8y ago
    I think this is the other way around. With any reasonable safety net, eventually these people would need to take some jobs. And people with no rare/hard-to-acquire skills have to take jobs that do not require rare/hard-to-acquire skills... meaning most people can do them. High supply lowers the price, of labor in this case. Sure, desperation due to low wages forms sort of a vicious cycle that may helps drive wages even lower, but I don't think it's the main reason for the poverty. With one year no questions asked unemployment benefit, a laid-off delivery person would still be back on the market in a year for the same crappy job (and the same would apply to any skillset - e.g. if there were way more software developers than needed, the same would be true in tech industry)
- WalterBright 8y ago
  A secretary (back in the days when that was a career) in the office my dad worked at once complained to him "garbage men get paid more than I do!" My dad asked her why she didn't quit and become a garbage man. She replied: "no way! that's a dirty, disgusting job!"
kartan 8y ago
> To me, it feels like the alternative, even if you could fix it, would result in eliminating swathes of currently provided services. I see your point. But, in my experience, it is the opposite. I have worked in Sweden and Spain, two very different job markets. Sweden is way more effective because employees have more rights and more possibilities to look for another job. In Spain, a lot of companies used to be very bad at what they were doing, but were using very cheap labour so they were able to have a profit anyway. It is the selection of the fittest. When you have abundant cheap labour the most abusive companies succeed. What that is not the case, smart responsible companies have an advantage. Poverty and stress is not a winning bet.
perfunctory 8y ago
Any system that necessitates the "must get a job very soon / now" mindset is not very different from slavery.

kibwen 8y ago

This attitude seems alien to me. If there's a job that nobody wants to do, the employer should offer more compensation. If that raises the price of the service such that the venture is no longer profitable, then that indicates a fundamental lack of demand for that service relative to its cost. No poor person should be expected to subsidize the comfort of the higher classes via their desperation.

pm90 8y ago
> No poor person should be expected to subsidize the comfort of the higher classes via their desperation. Why do you think sweatshops exist?
- tathougies 8y ago
  Because the cost of labor / covering up illegal hiring is lower than the cost of the item produced?
esotericn 8y ago
It's not an attitude - I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying. It's what I see when I look out of my window. That is to say, how I think the economy actually works. Basically no-one with a meaningful amount of capital takes low end jobs, because they don't have to. They can sit, read, wait, research, calmly consider, study, and find a way out. They have negotiating power (which is more than just telling a prospective boss a higher number - it's walking away, doing something else entirely, not even showing up to begin with). Poor people can't do that, which is why they take jobs that barely pay subsistence. They have no other choice and need to take the job that pays them _now_ with the skills they have _now_. Fundamentally this is why learning to spend less than you earn is probably the most important thing anyone can ever do. If you ever spend all of your money and have no access to credit, your freedom essentially disappears as you're forced to do almost anything someone with money tells you (legal or not).
- sershe 8y ago
  I think this is the other way around. With any reasonable safety net, eventually these people would need to take some jobs. And people with no rare/hard-to-acquire skills have to take jobs that do not require rare/hard-to-acquire skills... meaning most people can do them. High supply lowers the price, of labor in this case. Sure, desperation due to low wages forms sort of a vicious cycle that may helps drive wages even lower, but I don't think it's the main reason for the poverty. With one year no questions asked unemployment benefit, a laid-off delivery person would still be back on the market in a year for the same crappy job (and the same would apply to any skillset - e.g. if there were way more software developers than needed, the same would be true in tech industry)
WalterBright 8y ago
A secretary (back in the days when that was a career) in the office my dad worked at once complained to him "garbage men get paid more than I do!" My dad asked her why she didn't quit and become a garbage man. She replied: "no way! that's a dirty, disgusting job!"

kartan 8y ago

> To me, it feels like the alternative, even if you could fix it, would result in eliminating swathes of currently provided services. I see your point. But, in my experience, it is the opposite. I have worked in Sweden and Spain, two very different job markets. Sweden is way more effective because employees have more rights and more possibilities to look for another job. In Spain, a lot of companies used to be very bad at what they were doing, but were using very cheap labour so they were able to have a profit anyway. It is the selection of the fittest. When you have abundant cheap labour the most abusive companies succeed. What that is not the case, smart responsible companies have an advantage. Poverty and stress is not a winning bet.

perfunctory 8y ago

Any system that necessitates the "must get a job very soon / now" mindset is not very different from slavery.