4 ms·

I would have to lose 30 years of work experience, all of the skills I've learned, and my professional network. I might have done it when I was younger and didn

by kodyo 4y ago

I would have to lose 30 years of work experience, all of the skills I've learned, and my professional network. I might have done it when I was younger and didn't have any of that, but that kind of work didn't really exist beyond pizza delivery. I worked at a video rental store, instead. Crappy jobs are a motivation to improve.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
> I would have to lose 30 years of work experience, all of the skills I've learned, and my professional network. One bad head injury could do all that and more. What are you going to improve then? My point here is that given other choices, people don't freely choose precarious low wage work. It's safe to assume that people doing those jobs have pressures and constraints on them that limit their choices. This is why they're "willing" to do shitty work. You could be coerced into it too, given the right conditions. Understand the incentives, don't just justify it away as "freely chosen" because it isn't. To some extent that's true of all of us, but not to the same extent and the difference is meaningful.
- xwdv 4y ago
  If everything is a response to incentives then by this logic you could also say a software engineer is coerced into their career because of pressure put on by the cost of their lifestyle. People doing shitty work might not have incentive to do anything else.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    It seems very important to you to believe that the lowest paid, most precarious and vulnerable workers choose that freely and are thrilled with it. I think if you could find some curiosity about why they make those choices it might take you to interesting places, but I can't make you.
    - xwdv 4y ago
      I could have chosen to be a low paid vulnerable worker and not been thrilled with it. The barrier to entry is so low, it seems difficult to believe some people wouldn’t freely choose it out of convenience. Not sure how you can believe 100% of those workers are coerced into that line of work. Everything is a trade off. You could choose to be a software engineer, but it requires a big investment of your time and making critical life choices at the right moments. Much more difficult than simply running gigs.
- kodyo 4y ago
  You seem risk-averse, and that’s OK. But you aren’t in any position to tell other people what level of risk or action to take to maintain or improve their lives. People are free to choose and they take on the consequences of their choices, good or bad.

by kodyo 4y ago

giraffe_lady 4y ago

> I would have to lose 30 years of work experience, all of the skills I've learned, and my professional network. One bad head injury could do all that and more. What are you going to improve then? My point here is that given other choices, people don't freely choose precarious low wage work. It's safe to assume that people doing those jobs have pressures and constraints on them that limit their choices. This is why they're "willing" to do shitty work. You could be coerced into it too, given the right conditions. Understand the incentives, don't just justify it away as "freely chosen" because it isn't. To some extent that's true of all of us, but not to the same extent and the difference is meaningful.

xwdv 4y ago
If everything is a response to incentives then by this logic you could also say a software engineer is coerced into their career because of pressure put on by the cost of their lifestyle. People doing shitty work might not have incentive to do anything else.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  It seems very important to you to believe that the lowest paid, most precarious and vulnerable workers choose that freely and are thrilled with it. I think if you could find some curiosity about why they make those choices it might take you to interesting places, but I can't make you.
  - xwdv 4y ago
    I could have chosen to be a low paid vulnerable worker and not been thrilled with it. The barrier to entry is so low, it seems difficult to believe some people wouldn’t freely choose it out of convenience. Not sure how you can believe 100% of those workers are coerced into that line of work. Everything is a trade off. You could choose to be a software engineer, but it requires a big investment of your time and making critical life choices at the right moments. Much more difficult than simply running gigs.
kodyo 4y ago
You seem risk-averse, and that’s OK. But you aren’t in any position to tell other people what level of risk or action to take to maintain or improve their lives. People are free to choose and they take on the consequences of their choices, good or bad.