3 ms·

> I think the idea of a career is dead for a lot of the 40 and under set. The idea that you'll have the same job for decades is just nonsense We're probably ju

> I think the idea of a career is dead for a lot of the 40 and under set. The idea that you'll have the same job for decades is just nonsense We're probably just nit-picking over definitions but a career, in my opinion, is not "having the same job for decades." A career is a decision to specialize in a particular craft, trade or profession. The opposite of a career is someone who takes odd jobs. Hospitality one day, transportation the next, might dabble in manufacturing. These jobs pay the bills, and there's nothing wrong with "just" doing that, but they are disconnected jobs; not a career. I consider myself to have a career in software engineering but I have had multiple "jobs" over the decades that have contributed to that career. The career is the knowledge, the experience, the speciality, the reputation, the time spent focusing... all accumulated over my time developing that career. A career could be made by having a single job lasting from graduation until retirement, or it could be a handful of jobs that put to practice and develop the same skillset and knowledge.

Avshalom 4y ago
>> We're probably just nit-picking over definitions but a career No, that's fair. Like "carpenter" and "programmer" are both very broad professions of course. I think there's something about the way various industries get hit by down turns more or less visibly (like when construction goes down it feels like it's everybody, and so every framer, every concrete layer) that creates an (often false to be sure) sense of narrowness. But also Plumber, Electrician, Carpenter, etc. are very broad trades and even though articles get written using those words because everyone knows what they do, the articles are often really talking about the lack of elevator technicians, crane operators, industrial HVAC, PLC programmers, train conductors, air traffic controllers those more niche trades. A lot of machine operators end up so niche that their current company is the only one in a state that could employ them. My sister makes M&Ms, other than company policies about like sanitation she'd be no better than a new hire on the Twix line.
- chx 4y ago
  > the lack of elevator technicians, crane operators, industrial HVAC, PLC programmers, train conductors, air traffic controllers Blame Reagan. Seriously. I am not joking. Blame Reagan. These need to be union jobs. These used to be union jobs. For a more nuanced history read https://wwnorton.com/books/Invisible-Hands/ https://wwnorton.com/books/Invisible-Hands/
  - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
    Is the argument here that unions are needed to guarantee minimum pay and benefits for these highly specialized jobs so that they feel safe enough to specialize? Wouldn't that depress effective wages for these techs and make the jobs as appealing as less skilled labor?
    - chx 4y ago
      I am unable to follow your logic from the first sentence to the second please elaborate.
      - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
        The way you guarantee job stability would probably be to pay union members a salary even when they're temporarily not needed right? Then you pay this salary out using union dues. Union dues end up garnishing take-home wages which removes the incentive to specialize. ^ That was how I was imagining it. Am I wrong in thinking this way? Or is the argument that the urge to specialize is independent of wage?
        chx 4y ago
        A union negotiates salaries and work conditions both. Even with union dues your salary will be higher and work conditions so much better. Let's look at ATC as an example: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/air-traffic-controllers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/a... > Their work can be stressful because maximum concentration is required at all times. Night, weekend, and rotating shifts are common. Well, maybe there could be better agreements than rotating shifts on a very stressful job, don't you think so?
        Karrot_Kream 4y ago
        I'm not talking about a generic "unions are good" argument. I know why unions exist, the history behind them throughout much of the West, their ties to worker parties and socialism etc. I'm specifically wondering what about unionizing (or in this case, re-unionizing) makes it more palatable for these highly specialized roles to exist. Is your argument then that working conditions for folks like HVAC techs are poor enough that unions are necessary to negotiate for better working conditions before people want to become HVAC techs? Generally, the more specialized labor is, the higher wage and benefits they can demand in a capitalist labor market. Supply and demand. For less skilled labor like general electricians I can understand the role of the union in negotiating for wages, benefits, and safety standards. For highly skilled labor like an HVAC tech, I don't see it.

Avshalom 4y ago

>> We're probably just nit-picking over definitions but a career No, that's fair. Like "carpenter" and "programmer" are both very broad professions of course. I think there's something about the way various industries get hit by down turns more or less visibly (like when construction goes down it feels like it's everybody, and so every framer, every concrete layer) that creates an (often false to be sure) sense of narrowness. But also Plumber, Electrician, Carpenter, etc. are very broad trades and even though articles get written using those words because everyone knows what they do, the articles are often really talking about the lack of elevator technicians, crane operators, industrial HVAC, PLC programmers, train conductors, air traffic controllers those more niche trades. A lot of machine operators end up so niche that their current company is the only one in a state that could employ them. My sister makes M&Ms, other than company policies about like sanitation she'd be no better than a new hire on the Twix line.

chx 4y ago
> the lack of elevator technicians, crane operators, industrial HVAC, PLC programmers, train conductors, air traffic controllers Blame Reagan. Seriously. I am not joking. Blame Reagan. These need to be union jobs. These used to be union jobs. For a more nuanced history read https://wwnorton.com/books/Invisible-Hands/ https://wwnorton.com/books/Invisible-Hands/
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  Is the argument here that unions are needed to guarantee minimum pay and benefits for these highly specialized jobs so that they feel safe enough to specialize? Wouldn't that depress effective wages for these techs and make the jobs as appealing as less skilled labor?
  - chx 4y ago
    I am unable to follow your logic from the first sentence to the second please elaborate.
    - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
      The way you guarantee job stability would probably be to pay union members a salary even when they're temporarily not needed right? Then you pay this salary out using union dues. Union dues end up garnishing take-home wages which removes the incentive to specialize. ^ That was how I was imagining it. Am I wrong in thinking this way? Or is the argument that the urge to specialize is independent of wage?
      - chx 4y ago
        A union negotiates salaries and work conditions both. Even with union dues your salary will be higher and work conditions so much better. Let's look at ATC as an example: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/air-traffic-controllers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/a... > Their work can be stressful because maximum concentration is required at all times. Night, weekend, and rotating shifts are common. Well, maybe there could be better agreements than rotating shifts on a very stressful job, don't you think so?
        Karrot_Kream 4y ago
        I'm not talking about a generic "unions are good" argument. I know why unions exist, the history behind them throughout much of the West, their ties to worker parties and socialism etc. I'm specifically wondering what about unionizing (or in this case, re-unionizing) makes it more palatable for these highly specialized roles to exist. Is your argument then that working conditions for folks like HVAC techs are poor enough that unions are necessary to negotiate for better working conditions before people want to become HVAC techs? Generally, the more specialized labor is, the higher wage and benefits they can demand in a capitalist labor market. Supply and demand. For less skilled labor like general electricians I can understand the role of the union in negotiating for wages, benefits, and safety standards. For highly skilled labor like an HVAC tech, I don't see it.