4 ms·

Pretty sure the under class is by design. Anyone who's ever used the phrase "real job" believes in the necessary existence of an under class.

dantheman 3y ago
Not at all, there a jobs that are good for students and other low skill/low experience workers... you can walk in and generate value, the phrase real job as I've heard it means career where with experience the amount of value increases.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  What do you call a low experience worker, who only has access to jobs that pay insufficient to the cost of living? Underclass works fine for me. It seems like you do agree, you just either don't see that you do, or aren't honest enough to admit what the agreement means for the people who work these jobs. Their status as students or "other low skill" is irrelevant to their need to pay for food, housing, transport, healthcare etc.
  - BytesAndGears 3y ago
    It’s totally relevant because someone in their 20s might be able to live with their parents, or has multiple roommates etc. The amount of money that they need is much less than that of someone more established. It is a really interesting contrast though, that in Amsterdam where I now live (and many other parts of Europe), this divide doesn’t exist as strongly. We have a perfectly happy and healthy ~40 year old woman come to the office to tend to the plants, and she’s paid a totally fair livable wage. The guy who works at the cafeteria for the office complex supports his family in that job (and I’ve talked to him about it). Same with many other “low skill” workers that I talk to. Baristas at a cafe seem to still be mostly 20 year olds, but maybe a bit less so than in the US
    - ohyes 3y ago
      And then people wonder why none of us are having families. You’re too poor in your 20s, then you aren’t able to biologically by the time you’re in your 40s. But by then everyone in their 40s has the “I’ve got mine” mentality so nothing changes. We live in the stupidest timeline.
      - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
        I don't wonder why people aren't having families because the reason is obviously that they don't want to. It's not because things are worse now than ever in human history; that's pure rationalization/delusion/cope.
        bombcar 3y ago
        People always do things "because they want to" - even if forced to do it at gunpoint (they could choose to die, of course). Things on many metrics are likely better now than any point in human history, but people's perceptions of that are way off. But it doesn't change that there are people who would like to start a family and feel they can't. Obviously they can, as the mechanics of it all hasn't changed in the last million years, but they choose not to.
        SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
        I believe a more accurate description is that people are choosing not to have children in the current environment; maybe something in the environment is detected as unsuitable for children, since human biology hasn’t changed but the birth rate has gone down. If this kind of birthdate collapse happened in other organized animal societies we’d have lots of news pointing to specific environmental hazards, like that insecticide and bird eggs.
        shrimp_emoji 3y ago
        > something in the environment is detected as unsuitable for children Yep: compelling alternatives and contraceptives have appeared, and the pressures to have children have diminished. People in the past didn't have many of those, so they "chose" to have kids. Having kids is hard. If you have other options, you're gonna take them. It's as simple as that. I genuinely think people complaining about the conditions haven't done enough introspection. In the abstract, they may feel that having kids is something they want or should do, despite their revealed preference being to not do so. They're just hoping that, somehow, someway, the prospect of raising families will finally seem ultra-compelling and they'll do it and live happily ever, having their cake and eating it too. But that won't happen. The sad reality is that the premise rested on more suffering than currently exists. But it's okay: > If this kind of birthdate collapse happened in other organized animal societies we’d have lots of news pointing to specific environmental hazards, like that insecticide and bird eggs. Other animals won't be able to defy biology and grow transcended versions of themselves in pods, like we're surely gonna do eventually. That's the future, and it's unironically the solution to all the shitty Ponzi schemes our biological legacy left us with. :p Until then, all you can do is hang tight. (The only other solution is to go back to the Dark Ages, which is even worse.)
buttercraft 3y ago
Maybe, but someone once told me that I don't have a "real job" because I sit at a desk all day. And their perception didn't change when I told them I have a standing desk.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Every job that I feel is "beneath me" is a fake job. Of course the job I do is by definition a "real job", as is any job I'd like to do. Any job that is icky and I don't want to do is also a real job, of course. Even if paid less than fake ones. (heh above is pretty accurate for most people, though they won't admit it).

dantheman 3y ago

Not at all, there a jobs that are good for students and other low skill/low experience workers... you can walk in and generate value, the phrase real job as I've heard it means career where with experience the amount of value increases.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
What do you call a low experience worker, who only has access to jobs that pay insufficient to the cost of living? Underclass works fine for me. It seems like you do agree, you just either don't see that you do, or aren't honest enough to admit what the agreement means for the people who work these jobs. Their status as students or "other low skill" is irrelevant to their need to pay for food, housing, transport, healthcare etc.
- BytesAndGears 3y ago
  It’s totally relevant because someone in their 20s might be able to live with their parents, or has multiple roommates etc. The amount of money that they need is much less than that of someone more established. It is a really interesting contrast though, that in Amsterdam where I now live (and many other parts of Europe), this divide doesn’t exist as strongly. We have a perfectly happy and healthy ~40 year old woman come to the office to tend to the plants, and she’s paid a totally fair livable wage. The guy who works at the cafeteria for the office complex supports his family in that job (and I’ve talked to him about it). Same with many other “low skill” workers that I talk to. Baristas at a cafe seem to still be mostly 20 year olds, but maybe a bit less so than in the US
  - ohyes 3y ago
    And then people wonder why none of us are having families. You’re too poor in your 20s, then you aren’t able to biologically by the time you’re in your 40s. But by then everyone in their 40s has the “I’ve got mine” mentality so nothing changes. We live in the stupidest timeline.
    - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
      I don't wonder why people aren't having families because the reason is obviously that they don't want to. It's not because things are worse now than ever in human history; that's pure rationalization/delusion/cope.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        People always do things "because they want to" - even if forced to do it at gunpoint (they could choose to die, of course). Things on many metrics are likely better now than any point in human history, but people's perceptions of that are way off. But it doesn't change that there are people who would like to start a family and feel they can't. Obviously they can, as the mechanics of it all hasn't changed in the last million years, but they choose not to.
      - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
        I believe a more accurate description is that people are choosing not to have children in the current environment; maybe something in the environment is detected as unsuitable for children, since human biology hasn’t changed but the birth rate has gone down. If this kind of birthdate collapse happened in other organized animal societies we’d have lots of news pointing to specific environmental hazards, like that insecticide and bird eggs.
        shrimp_emoji 3y ago
        > something in the environment is detected as unsuitable for children Yep: compelling alternatives and contraceptives have appeared, and the pressures to have children have diminished. People in the past didn't have many of those, so they "chose" to have kids. Having kids is hard. If you have other options, you're gonna take them. It's as simple as that. I genuinely think people complaining about the conditions haven't done enough introspection. In the abstract, they may feel that having kids is something they want or should do, despite their revealed preference being to not do so. They're just hoping that, somehow, someway, the prospect of raising families will finally seem ultra-compelling and they'll do it and live happily ever, having their cake and eating it too. But that won't happen. The sad reality is that the premise rested on more suffering than currently exists. But it's okay: > If this kind of birthdate collapse happened in other organized animal societies we’d have lots of news pointing to specific environmental hazards, like that insecticide and bird eggs. Other animals won't be able to defy biology and grow transcended versions of themselves in pods, like we're surely gonna do eventually. That's the future, and it's unironically the solution to all the shitty Ponzi schemes our biological legacy left us with. :p Until then, all you can do is hang tight. (The only other solution is to go back to the Dark Ages, which is even worse.)

buttercraft 3y ago

Maybe, but someone once told me that I don't have a "real job" because I sit at a desk all day. And their perception didn't change when I told them I have a standing desk.

bombcar 3y ago
Every job that I feel is "beneath me" is a fake job. Of course the job I do is by definition a "real job", as is any job I'd like to do. Any job that is icky and I don't want to do is also a real job, of course. Even if paid less than fake ones. (heh above is pretty accurate for most people, though they won't admit it).