4 ms·

I think it's less of "wealth work" and really just "work" and it's good and necessary. Times are never constant, things change all the time. More traditional wo

I think it's less of "wealth work" and really just "work" and it's good and necessary. Times are never constant, things change all the time. More traditional work (traditional in the context of the last 50-100 years) has been on the decline due to huge advancements in technology, globalisation and other reasons, so it's only normal that we see many jobs go, but equally and luckily also many new jobs come. It's true that there is more "Uber for X" businesses out there today, but 30 years ago we also didn't have "Digital Agencies", "YouTubers", "Influencers", "SEO Experts", "Security Engineers", "Software Architects" and obviously "Uber Drivers". But today people have different jobs than 30 years ago and that is alright. Personally I see this market grow even more in the next two decades. One day someone's job will be to stand in the queue for me to buy me tickets to Wimbledon tennis tournaments or a new iPhone during a launch event. Some might say this is degrading work, but others will love it. We might call it "wealth work" today with a bit of a negative meaning, but I bet a few hundred years ago people felt the same about someone who was cutting your nails, scrubbing your feet and giving you a head massage. A great glimpse into the future of jobs is by looking at Japan. In Japan you can hire someone to "cuddle with you". It's not a sex worker, but as people feel more and more lonely, it's only natural to see a new market rise in this space - where there is a new need (and money) there is a new potential market.

esotericn 7y ago
> One day someone's job will be to stand in the queue for me to buy me tickets to Wimbledon tennis tournaments or a new iPhone during a launch event. This is always going to be degrading because it's literally an artificial meaningless thing. The operators could just do this for a fee, but they're forcing someone to burn their time instead.
- dustinmoris 7y ago
  I really think that this is only seen as degrading today, because it's not needed yet. Was probably the same case for people cooking your food, or making you a sandwich, or someone walking your dog or looking after your cat whilst you are on holiday, or coming into your house and doing the gardening. But once the times have changed where there's an actual demand for someone to stand in the queue in front of an Apple Store, then I am sure the perception will change too. Maybe the "Uber Driver" or "Digital Agent" is too busy during business hours but can afford someone else to pick up a phone for him. There's a physical limit to how many people can buy the phone from a shop, so it's not going to be a profession where anyone can do it, you'll probably end up paying quite a bit for someone who potentially has personal connections to the shop owner or gets some preferential spot in the queue so they can charge a higher fee whereas someone who is not at the same level might charge very little but also end up at spot #1001 in the queue and actually not being able to get your desired tickets. You see what I mean? We can't write off this new market when we don't know yet what it will look like. All I can say, wherever there is need there is money and the more mature a market gets the more $$$ there is to make. Being a professional who can secure you the first iPhone during a launch event can be a hugely respected job one day.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    > I really think that this is only seen as degrading today, because it's not needed yet. The point was that it's not needed period. There is no point in having people wait for hours in a queue apart from satisfying the retailer's vanity. It's degrading to the prospective customer personally standing in line, much less a mere hired agent. The economically sound move would be to price the items at a point where there is no shortage, but if the company wants to create the appearance of a shortage at artificially low prices for dubious marketing reasons then they should just hold a lottery for the opportunity to purchase rather than making people waste their limited time in line.
    - gowld 7y ago
      Pricing at a non-shortage point is even worse. Waiting in a queue means that some poor people have a chance at getting the product. Auctioning the desirable product guarantees they won't. Lottery is perhaps better, but it's probably easier to game a lottery than a line, since a rich person can buy many tickets.
      - nybble41 7y ago
        As to the first point, it depends on what you're trying to achieve. That's why I mentioned the lottery option. You can limit the lottery to one entry per person and make the ticket, and the item itself, non-transferrable; anything less can be gamed to favor those with disposable funds, including queues. (After all, that's the subject of this thread.) However, I think that if someone took the time they'd otherwise have been wasting in lines and used it productively instead then they could probably earn enough to afford the higher market-clearing price, and society would be better for it.
        mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
        If you do a lottery you're still more likely to have a higher proportion of folks with more money and less time than vice versa than you would if you force people to stand in line, and if you verify that the attendees actually stood in line you make it more difficult to game. Re: your second point, I can't imagine that's accurate given the extreme differences that exist in disposable income and earning ability. Edit: I'm realizing now that you may have been more focused on retail than events, in which case I suppose the identity verification option that I'm discussing I admit seems a bit stranger / less relevant.
- xboxnolifes 7y ago
  >This is always going to be degrading because it's literally an artificial meaningless thing. It's not really artificial, it's the product of having first-come-first-served instead of highest-bidder products. >The operators could just do this for a fee, but they're forcing someone to burn their time instead. Ignoring the choice of FCFS instead of highest bidder, this is just what work is. Someone is offering their time in exchange for monetary compensation.
  - gowld 7y ago
    Artificial means created by people. Choosing first-come-first-served meets that definition. A queue is an artificial object.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    It is precisely artificial. Yes, it is work. Degrading work, because it's completely pointless. I could pay someone to move the gravel on my drive from one side to the other over and over again for a year. Someone would probably accept that if I structured it as an 8-hour job with health insurance etc. It'd be the most mind-numbingly boring thing ever.
- avgDev 7y ago
  Agreed! I always thought standing in line to get something was odd. I tried doing it for a game once, and I felt miserable. What a total waste of time. Most game studios fixed it, by going digital and allowing preloads. Doing that as a job? Oof. 0 skills required, just good knees. Definitely, sounds like a wise career move./s
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
schnevets 7y ago
It's interesting that you mention some of the other emerging careers like "Influencers", because there is a lot more capacity for innovation in these emerging careers. A lot of those industries involve consulting, software, and even hardware products that can give one aspirant an advantage over the competition. If you selectively look at capacity for innovation alongside productivity, YouTube, SEO, and other "new" industries are a much greater boom for the economy than Postmates and Uber. Gig economy apps are not an open platform. Workers are in the thrall to their company of choice, and there is no upward mobility. Even a manicurist may be able to learn new techniques or save money to open their own store, but the app that told a stranger to buy Wimbledon tickets for you doesn't provide a plan for the worker beyond going from gig-to-gig.

esotericn 7y ago

> One day someone's job will be to stand in the queue for me to buy me tickets to Wimbledon tennis tournaments or a new iPhone during a launch event. This is always going to be degrading because it's literally an artificial meaningless thing. The operators could just do this for a fee, but they're forcing someone to burn their time instead.

dustinmoris 7y ago
I really think that this is only seen as degrading today, because it's not needed yet. Was probably the same case for people cooking your food, or making you a sandwich, or someone walking your dog or looking after your cat whilst you are on holiday, or coming into your house and doing the gardening. But once the times have changed where there's an actual demand for someone to stand in the queue in front of an Apple Store, then I am sure the perception will change too. Maybe the "Uber Driver" or "Digital Agent" is too busy during business hours but can afford someone else to pick up a phone for him. There's a physical limit to how many people can buy the phone from a shop, so it's not going to be a profession where anyone can do it, you'll probably end up paying quite a bit for someone who potentially has personal connections to the shop owner or gets some preferential spot in the queue so they can charge a higher fee whereas someone who is not at the same level might charge very little but also end up at spot #1001 in the queue and actually not being able to get your desired tickets. You see what I mean? We can't write off this new market when we don't know yet what it will look like. All I can say, wherever there is need there is money and the more mature a market gets the more $$$ there is to make. Being a professional who can secure you the first iPhone during a launch event can be a hugely respected job one day.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > I really think that this is only seen as degrading today, because it's not needed yet. The point was that it's not needed period. There is no point in having people wait for hours in a queue apart from satisfying the retailer's vanity. It's degrading to the prospective customer personally standing in line, much less a mere hired agent. The economically sound move would be to price the items at a point where there is no shortage, but if the company wants to create the appearance of a shortage at artificially low prices for dubious marketing reasons then they should just hold a lottery for the opportunity to purchase rather than making people waste their limited time in line.
  - gowld 7y ago
    Pricing at a non-shortage point is even worse. Waiting in a queue means that some poor people have a chance at getting the product. Auctioning the desirable product guarantees they won't. Lottery is perhaps better, but it's probably easier to game a lottery than a line, since a rich person can buy many tickets.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      As to the first point, it depends on what you're trying to achieve. That's why I mentioned the lottery option. You can limit the lottery to one entry per person and make the ticket, and the item itself, non-transferrable; anything less can be gamed to favor those with disposable funds, including queues. (After all, that's the subject of this thread.) However, I think that if someone took the time they'd otherwise have been wasting in lines and used it productively instead then they could probably earn enough to afford the higher market-clearing price, and society would be better for it.
      - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
        If you do a lottery you're still more likely to have a higher proportion of folks with more money and less time than vice versa than you would if you force people to stand in line, and if you verify that the attendees actually stood in line you make it more difficult to game. Re: your second point, I can't imagine that's accurate given the extreme differences that exist in disposable income and earning ability. Edit: I'm realizing now that you may have been more focused on retail than events, in which case I suppose the identity verification option that I'm discussing I admit seems a bit stranger / less relevant.
xboxnolifes 7y ago
>This is always going to be degrading because it's literally an artificial meaningless thing. It's not really artificial, it's the product of having first-come-first-served instead of highest-bidder products. >The operators could just do this for a fee, but they're forcing someone to burn their time instead. Ignoring the choice of FCFS instead of highest bidder, this is just what work is. Someone is offering their time in exchange for monetary compensation.
- gowld 7y ago
  Artificial means created by people. Choosing first-come-first-served meets that definition. A queue is an artificial object.
- esotericn 7y ago
  It is precisely artificial. Yes, it is work. Degrading work, because it's completely pointless. I could pay someone to move the gravel on my drive from one side to the other over and over again for a year. Someone would probably accept that if I structured it as an 8-hour job with health insurance etc. It'd be the most mind-numbingly boring thing ever.
avgDev 7y ago
Agreed! I always thought standing in line to get something was odd. I tried doing it for a game once, and I felt miserable. What a total waste of time. Most game studios fixed it, by going digital and allowing preloads. Doing that as a job? Oof. 0 skills required, just good knees. Definitely, sounds like a wise career move./s
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

schnevets 7y ago

It's interesting that you mention some of the other emerging careers like "Influencers", because there is a lot more capacity for innovation in these emerging careers. A lot of those industries involve consulting, software, and even hardware products that can give one aspirant an advantage over the competition. If you selectively look at capacity for innovation alongside productivity, YouTube, SEO, and other "new" industries are a much greater boom for the economy than Postmates and Uber. Gig economy apps are not an open platform. Workers are in the thrall to their company of choice, and there is no upward mobility. Even a manicurist may be able to learn new techniques or save money to open their own store, but the app that told a stranger to buy Wimbledon tickets for you doesn't provide a plan for the worker beyond going from gig-to-gig.