7 ms·

What things like this miss is that we can't all be rulers of the queen's navy. That is: we can't all be computer programmers and marketing executives and doctor

by arp242 3y ago

What things like this miss is that we can't all be rulers of the queen's navy. That is: we can't all be computer programmers and marketing executives and doctors and whatnot. We actually do need the cleaners, and farm hands, and landscapers, and people at Tesco, and so forth and so forth. Anti-poverty efforts that focus mainly on education kind of miss this, IMHO. And sure, these efforts and not useless especially in the context of entire communities being impoverished, but someone will have to do those jobs regardless, and the problems are so much deeper.

hotpotamus 3y ago
If we need those jobs so much, then perhaps we should treat the people who do them with respect. Like by giving them predictable, full-time schedules and health insurance.
- arp242 3y ago
  Yes I agree; that was my point more or less: people should be able to work these "poor jobs" and still have a reasonable standard of living. I'm okay with people being "poor relative to middle class", as long as everyone has a reasonable standard of living (barring exceptional circumstances).
- arcbyte 3y ago
  This is an interesting comment because there are jobs like this out there. Absolutely companies exist which pay janitors very well. Companies exist owned by janitors who make tons of money. Many, many companies also exist that are absolutely of low quality. It would be good to explore this disparity more. Just because there's a job called "janitor" doesn't mean it is valued the same way in every context, even if we might argue it should. Why?
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    I’m speaking from my personal experience of working such jobs. It’s a perspective that seems oddly rare on this forum. The well-respected, well-paid working class job may exist, but as someone who actually did the work and still knows a lot of people who do, I suspect it’s a myth.
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      I agree with you. In 1975, the janitor was an employee of a company whose premises they were cleaning. It was theoretically possible for the janitor to become CEO one day, or at least an executive. [1] Today, the janitor probably works for a contractor hired by the company who bills them out at a multiple of what they actually get paid. They probably don't have very good benefits, are lucky if they can afford the health insurance offered, and probably can't really afford to contribute to a 401k. I would much rather be a janitor in 1975 than 2023. --- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Monta%C3%B1ez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Monta%C3%B1ez
    - FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
      Even jobs like "mailman", which you'd think is a modest government job with decent benefits, have suffered. A lot of mail carriers are precarious contractors without a fixed schedule.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  And this means society investing in technologies that dramatically improve their job. E.g. janitors of the future maintaining advanced robots and lighting systems that keep everything operational and healthy.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    I think it means investing in worker protections for the janitors of today.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      Both, protect workers of today, and government r&d investments into ways to make their lives even better.
millzlane 3y ago
Someone does needs to do these jobs, but would you tell your kid who wants to be more than a janitor that "we all can't be successful programmers; what would the world do without be without impoverished people to do the jobs we don't want. Sure someone has to do those jobs sure, but should they only be reserved for poor people?
- arp242 3y ago
  Well, no, and I'll go even a step further and consider anyone saying such things to be a bad parent. But the context here isn't a parent trying to get the most for their kids, it's people thinking on how to organise a reasonably just and fair society. And in this context, I think it's important to realize that no matter what we do need people doing these jobs, and that these people also deserve a reasonable standard of living. I don't have a problem with "poor" per se, but there's different levels of "poor" and right now you can work an honest full-time job and not make rent – I don't consider that to be reasonable.
  - millzlane 3y ago
    I would agree with you. Thank you for adding context. I'll admit I'm guilty of rolling out of bed and commenting so I may have missed the point in my foggy haze.
  - jewayne 3y ago
    Right. I think almost everybody wants some version of "fairness", but for many fairness is actually defined by a remarkably strict hierarchy. It's not that they want McDonald's workers to suffer, exactly, but they want to be able to see, even at a glance, that they are doing better than the McD's workers (and of course they go to McD's and enjoy that convenience) And the same people will say, without a hint of irony, that people working low-wage jobs shouldn't have kids they can't afford. As in, not only should people doing essential jobs be restricted from enjoying life, they should also die off without reproducing.
zozbot234 3y ago
The issue is that we don't have too few people willing to work at Tesco or be landscapers; we have far too many of them relatively, and way too few doctors, computer coders or other high-skilled jobs. One additional unit of landscaping or Tesco work contributes very little to society, and ultimately that's what sets the reward for work in a market economy. (You can of course have some subsidies on top of that for low-income folks, to help them make rent and whatnot - and there's nothing wrong with that if they're carefully designed. The U.S. EITC and the German "Minijob" arrangements are pretty decent all things considered.)
- intelVISA 3y ago
  Software development is high-skilled? Scary to imagine.
- BadCookie 3y ago
  We have too few coders? Then explain why job openings are getting hundreds of applicants in the first few hours and auto-rejecting people with many years of experience. I think you are mistaken.
  - pandaman 3y ago
    The compensation for coders is high because there are few of those and the high compensation attracts job applications. I don't see any discrepancy here. If you could actually close any vacancy with one of the applications you got in a few hours then why anybody would have paid huge money to recruiters, had vacancies open for years, paid FTE rates well above any other profession that does not require formal credentials (actors, models, athletes, rock stars, writers etc are either contractors or self-employed) and kept raising the compensation?
- arp242 3y ago
  Alright, sure, although I'm not sure if that really matters? We still need people to do these jobs and we need tons of them (not just a few)?
  - 3y ago
Paul-Craft 3y ago
No, we can't. But, we can all at least aspire to be Danes[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index
RivieraKid 3y ago
The markets solves this. If everyone is smart, skilled and educated, those low-wage and low-status jobs would actually be the best paying jobs with lots of perks to attract workers.

by arp242 3y ago

hotpotamus 3y ago

If we need those jobs so much, then perhaps we should treat the people who do them with respect. Like by giving them predictable, full-time schedules and health insurance.

arp242 3y ago
Yes I agree; that was my point more or less: people should be able to work these "poor jobs" and still have a reasonable standard of living. I'm okay with people being "poor relative to middle class", as long as everyone has a reasonable standard of living (barring exceptional circumstances).
arcbyte 3y ago
This is an interesting comment because there are jobs like this out there. Absolutely companies exist which pay janitors very well. Companies exist owned by janitors who make tons of money. Many, many companies also exist that are absolutely of low quality. It would be good to explore this disparity more. Just because there's a job called "janitor" doesn't mean it is valued the same way in every context, even if we might argue it should. Why?
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  I’m speaking from my personal experience of working such jobs. It’s a perspective that seems oddly rare on this forum. The well-respected, well-paid working class job may exist, but as someone who actually did the work and still knows a lot of people who do, I suspect it’s a myth.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    I agree with you. In 1975, the janitor was an employee of a company whose premises they were cleaning. It was theoretically possible for the janitor to become CEO one day, or at least an executive. [1] Today, the janitor probably works for a contractor hired by the company who bills them out at a multiple of what they actually get paid. They probably don't have very good benefits, are lucky if they can afford the health insurance offered, and probably can't really afford to contribute to a 401k. I would much rather be a janitor in 1975 than 2023. --- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Monta%C3%B1ez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Monta%C3%B1ez
  - FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
    Even jobs like "mailman", which you'd think is a modest government job with decent benefits, have suffered. A lot of mail carriers are precarious contractors without a fixed schedule.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
And this means society investing in technologies that dramatically improve their job. E.g. janitors of the future maintaining advanced robots and lighting systems that keep everything operational and healthy.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  I think it means investing in worker protections for the janitors of today.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Both, protect workers of today, and government r&d investments into ways to make their lives even better.

millzlane 3y ago

Someone does needs to do these jobs, but would you tell your kid who wants to be more than a janitor that "we all can't be successful programmers; what would the world do without be without impoverished people to do the jobs we don't want. Sure someone has to do those jobs sure, but should they only be reserved for poor people?

arp242 3y ago
Well, no, and I'll go even a step further and consider anyone saying such things to be a bad parent. But the context here isn't a parent trying to get the most for their kids, it's people thinking on how to organise a reasonably just and fair society. And in this context, I think it's important to realize that no matter what we do need people doing these jobs, and that these people also deserve a reasonable standard of living. I don't have a problem with "poor" per se, but there's different levels of "poor" and right now you can work an honest full-time job and not make rent – I don't consider that to be reasonable.
- millzlane 3y ago
  I would agree with you. Thank you for adding context. I'll admit I'm guilty of rolling out of bed and commenting so I may have missed the point in my foggy haze.
- jewayne 3y ago
  Right. I think almost everybody wants some version of "fairness", but for many fairness is actually defined by a remarkably strict hierarchy. It's not that they want McDonald's workers to suffer, exactly, but they want to be able to see, even at a glance, that they are doing better than the McD's workers (and of course they go to McD's and enjoy that convenience) And the same people will say, without a hint of irony, that people working low-wage jobs shouldn't have kids they can't afford. As in, not only should people doing essential jobs be restricted from enjoying life, they should also die off without reproducing.

zozbot234 3y ago

The issue is that we don't have too few people willing to work at Tesco or be landscapers; we have far too many of them relatively, and way too few doctors, computer coders or other high-skilled jobs. One additional unit of landscaping or Tesco work contributes very little to society, and ultimately that's what sets the reward for work in a market economy. (You can of course have some subsidies on top of that for low-income folks, to help them make rent and whatnot - and there's nothing wrong with that if they're carefully designed. The U.S. EITC and the German "Minijob" arrangements are pretty decent all things considered.)

intelVISA 3y ago
Software development is high-skilled? Scary to imagine.
BadCookie 3y ago
We have too few coders? Then explain why job openings are getting hundreds of applicants in the first few hours and auto-rejecting people with many years of experience. I think you are mistaken.
- pandaman 3y ago
  The compensation for coders is high because there are few of those and the high compensation attracts job applications. I don't see any discrepancy here. If you could actually close any vacancy with one of the applications you got in a few hours then why anybody would have paid huge money to recruiters, had vacancies open for years, paid FTE rates well above any other profession that does not require formal credentials (actors, models, athletes, rock stars, writers etc are either contractors or self-employed) and kept raising the compensation?
arp242 3y ago
Alright, sure, although I'm not sure if that really matters? We still need people to do these jobs and we need tons of them (not just a few)?
- 3y ago

Paul-Craft 3y ago

No, we can't. But, we can all at least aspire to be Danes[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index

RivieraKid 3y ago

The markets solves this. If everyone is smart, skilled and educated, those low-wage and low-status jobs would actually be the best paying jobs with lots of perks to attract workers.