4 ms·

You mean they would quit because they can afford to. In a better world no one would have to do the shitty jobs.

bonestamp2 7y ago
Most low skill jobs are not that shitty though. I mean, the pay might not be great but most of the actual work isn't that bad. There are exceptions of course and I've heard amazon warehouse jobs are awful. But, I worked a bunch of low skill jobs in high school and college and I actually enjoyed it most of the time. The teamwork and comradery are way better than any highly skilled jobs I've had.
- Rapzid 7y ago
  > Most low skill jobs are not that shitty though. I mean, the pay might not be great... They are shitty for a number of reasons, but that is certainly near the top of the list. Lack of agency and respect may top my personal list.
  - jachee 7y ago
    Many are outright exploitative. Fast food comes immediately to mind: I once got disciplinary action one summer, because I came in to work too much, and crossed over 80 hours in a two-week pay period, thus earning overtime. Coworkers had called out, so I got called in. Did my job, then got punished and unscheduled because I worked "too much". All so a mega-franchiser (who owns most of one particular national chain's stores across a large region) could ultimately avoid supporting (no one was scheduled more than 39.5 hours a week to avoid them becoming "full-time" and requiring benefits, scheduling wasn't handled in a timely manner, etc.) the people who do the essential work for their survival, day in and day out, keeping massive profits for themselves. It really pisses me off, and these are just a few of the reasons it's shitty.
    - CryptoPunk 7y ago
      The mega-franchiser didn't owe you a better job. Your situation was shitty, in that you were left with no options but low-pay work, but the fact that the mega-franchiser stepped in to take advantage of that situation, by hiring you, didn't make your situation any more shitty.
      - Twixes 7y ago
        The franchiser exploited them by offering abysmal conditions and lowering the bar for all other employers.
        CryptoPunk 7y ago
        Offering conditions that are abysmal by some arbitrary standard is not exploitation in any meaningful sense. And the job didn't lower the bar. He only took the job because it was better than the next best job available to him. The franchiser benefited from the arrangement, but so did the employee. Unequal power between two parties to a contract, where the more powerful party benefits, doesn't imply a zero-sum exploitive interaction. You're misattributing his shitty situation to the employer, when it in fact existed independently of the employment contract. His shitty situation was that he didn't have a valuable skill to offer. He had one that was worth little, and the franchiser paid him for his skills accordingly.
        jachee 7y ago
        What part of "punished for working too many hours" is mutually beneficial? How about not scheduling anyone full-time, but stopping just short to avoid supporting them? How about not paying anyone outside of management above minimum wage? How about not establishing regular schedules published in a timely manner?
        CryptoPunk 7y ago
        They are keeping their wages low by avoiding mandatory pay rises that come with statutory overtime. So to reiterate: they offer low wages, and their actions are consistent with that objective. Yet the workers all chose to work there, implying it was better than the next best option available to them. For the employees, they are better off for that employer offering the employment, than not doing so. So my point stands. You seem to not have even addressed it, and instead made an appeal to emotion by repeatedly referencing the low pay the employer insisted on providing. >>How about not establishing regular schedules published in a timely manner? This is the only potentially abusive and fraudulent practice you cited, and I would support class-action litigation to punish employers who engage in it, and publicly funded advocates and watchdogs to assist low-wage workers who find themselves facing these kinds of practices. The argument that low-pay jobs - that those working them willingly accepted - is by definition exploitation is, OTOH, an economic fallacy that misattributes the cause of low-pay and promotes regulatory restrictions on contract liberty that gravely harm society.
gwright 7y ago
In your mind what has happened to those "shitty jobs"?
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  The ideal thing is for them to be automated, which makes things cost less. Then people have the money they didn't spend on paying unskilled workers to spend on something else, which creates demand for something else. The suppliers of the something else need workers to make it, so they hire the people who lost their jobs. In many cases the new jobs require more skills, so the employers either have to train them or pay them enough to pay off student loans, so that's what they do. This is what has been happening for decades. The percentage of unskilled workers in the economy has been decreasing without a corresponding increase in unemployment.

Most low skill jobs are not that shitty though. I mean, the pay might not be great but most of the actual work isn't that bad. There are exceptions of course and I've heard amazon warehouse jobs are awful. But, I worked a bunch of low skill jobs in high school and college and I actually enjoyed it most of the time. The teamwork and comradery are way better than any highly skilled jobs I've had.

Rapzid 7y ago
> Most low skill jobs are not that shitty though. I mean, the pay might not be great... They are shitty for a number of reasons, but that is certainly near the top of the list. Lack of agency and respect may top my personal list.
- jachee 7y ago
  Many are outright exploitative. Fast food comes immediately to mind: I once got disciplinary action one summer, because I came in to work too much, and crossed over 80 hours in a two-week pay period, thus earning overtime. Coworkers had called out, so I got called in. Did my job, then got punished and unscheduled because I worked "too much". All so a mega-franchiser (who owns most of one particular national chain's stores across a large region) could ultimately avoid supporting (no one was scheduled more than 39.5 hours a week to avoid them becoming "full-time" and requiring benefits, scheduling wasn't handled in a timely manner, etc.) the people who do the essential work for their survival, day in and day out, keeping massive profits for themselves. It really pisses me off, and these are just a few of the reasons it's shitty.
  - CryptoPunk 7y ago
    The mega-franchiser didn't owe you a better job. Your situation was shitty, in that you were left with no options but low-pay work, but the fact that the mega-franchiser stepped in to take advantage of that situation, by hiring you, didn't make your situation any more shitty.
    - Twixes 7y ago
      The franchiser exploited them by offering abysmal conditions and lowering the bar for all other employers.
      - CryptoPunk 7y ago
        Offering conditions that are abysmal by some arbitrary standard is not exploitation in any meaningful sense. And the job didn't lower the bar. He only took the job because it was better than the next best job available to him. The franchiser benefited from the arrangement, but so did the employee. Unequal power between two parties to a contract, where the more powerful party benefits, doesn't imply a zero-sum exploitive interaction. You're misattributing his shitty situation to the employer, when it in fact existed independently of the employment contract. His shitty situation was that he didn't have a valuable skill to offer. He had one that was worth little, and the franchiser paid him for his skills accordingly.
        jachee 7y ago
        What part of "punished for working too many hours" is mutually beneficial? How about not scheduling anyone full-time, but stopping just short to avoid supporting them? How about not paying anyone outside of management above minimum wage? How about not establishing regular schedules published in a timely manner?
        CryptoPunk 7y ago
        They are keeping their wages low by avoiding mandatory pay rises that come with statutory overtime. So to reiterate: they offer low wages, and their actions are consistent with that objective. Yet the workers all chose to work there, implying it was better than the next best option available to them. For the employees, they are better off for that employer offering the employment, than not doing so. So my point stands. You seem to not have even addressed it, and instead made an appeal to emotion by repeatedly referencing the low pay the employer insisted on providing. >>How about not establishing regular schedules published in a timely manner? This is the only potentially abusive and fraudulent practice you cited, and I would support class-action litigation to punish employers who engage in it, and publicly funded advocates and watchdogs to assist low-wage workers who find themselves facing these kinds of practices. The argument that low-pay jobs - that those working them willingly accepted - is by definition exploitation is, OTOH, an economic fallacy that misattributes the cause of low-pay and promotes regulatory restrictions on contract liberty that gravely harm society.

gwright 7y ago

In your mind what has happened to those "shitty jobs"?

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
The ideal thing is for them to be automated, which makes things cost less. Then people have the money they didn't spend on paying unskilled workers to spend on something else, which creates demand for something else. The suppliers of the something else need workers to make it, so they hire the people who lost their jobs. In many cases the new jobs require more skills, so the employers either have to train them or pay them enough to pay off student loans, so that's what they do. This is what has been happening for decades. The percentage of unskilled workers in the economy has been decreasing without a corresponding increase in unemployment.