4 ms·
Most people would prefer welfare than a job like that, even if the job meant more money.
by dreen 8y ago
Most people would prefer welfare than a job like that, even if the job meant more money.
- mcv 8y agoMaybe unpopular jobs need to be improved, rather than have unwilling people forced into them.
- dreen 8y agoHow would you improve a job like shelf stacking? Or cleaning streets? Or digging ditches? What improvements do you have in mind?
- mcv 8y agoIf nobody wants to do them, better pay. Also maybe more time for breaks, better support, etc. It depends on what the problems with the job are. If nobody wants to do a certain job that we need, figure out why and fix the problem. If it's a job we don't need, eliminate it.
- dreen 8y agoIts jobs we need done but that are also borderline demeaning. Something machines should do. Some people still want to do them, but I would not, no matter the break time. Paying more would be good, but there is a limit to that.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoIt could be as simple as permitting such "demeaning" roles outside of zero hours contracts, with more flexibility for the employee to work around childcare. Right now all the flexibility is for the benefit of the employer. When the kids were young, SO looked to find something, almost anything part time, so long as it fit around the needs of the children and schools. We were both surprised at how limited those choices were and how often they required some hours commitment that guaranteed they could not coexist with raising young children.
- mcv 8y agoI tend to be very free-market about this. If nobody wants to do them, we shouldn't be forcing people to, we should make them more attractive. If they're borderline demeaning, make them less demeaning. If that's not possible and machines can do it, let machines do it. Otherwise increase pay. At some point either someone will do it, we'll find a better way, or we'll conclude it's not that necessary after all. If people are willing to do these jobs, then there's no problem.