
Jobs, jobs everywhere, but most of them kind of suck - paulpauper
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/november-jobs-report-analysis-wage-growth-unemployment.html
======
methodover
I just read The Meritocracy Trap by Daniel Markovitz. It’s an incredible book
and talks at length about the issue in the article.

A word about this:

“What technology and trade have done, however, is displace millions of
Americans from their middle-class jobs, and send them hurtling down the income
ladder into less remunerative occupations.”

It’s not that simple. It’s not just trade and technology.

The causes of the erosion of good middle-class jobs are extremely complex.
I’ll talk about just one here, since I don’t have too much time:

Tax law works to advantage higher tier workers over middle class workers. It
costs much less in payroll taxes to hire a single superskilled worker at
extremely high compensation than it does to hire a bunch of mid skill workers
at middle class comp.

Quoting from the book:

“A simple example illustrates the special burden that the payroll tax imposes
specifically on middle-class labor. If a bank deploys midcentury financial
technologies to issue home mortgages using twenty mid-skilled loan officers
who each earn $100,000 per year, this costs the bank and the workers, taken
together, $306,000 in payroll taxes. By contrast, if the bank were to switch
to the current mode of production and displace the mid-skilled loan officers
with a single Wall Street trader who earns $2 million, this would cost the
bank and the trader only about $90,000.

“Where two technologies of production are economically equivalent, but one
requires twenty mid-skilled workers while the other requires one super-skilled
worker, the mid-skilled approach currently faces an average payroll tax rate
over 10 percentage points higher than the meritocratic approach, which
produces an aggregate payroll tax burden over three times as great.

“The payroll tax, in other words, substantially suppresses mid-skilled
employment and wages and fosters super-skilled employment and wages. (Indeed,
if the super-skilled worker can get capital gains treatment for her income, by
styling it as founder’s shares or carried interest, the income tax adds a
further bias, on the order of 20 percentage points.)”

~~~
einpoklum
While 306 vs 90 is nothing to scoff at, we're talking about 200 / 2000 = 10%
of a difference, in the extreme and unrealistic case you quoted. So in less
extreme cases it would be just a few percentage points.

~~~
methodover
I don’t understand the math you’re giving here.

------
derision
I'd rather work in walmart than work in a German factory like my grandfather
did. He was able to come home to Italy once a year to see his family.

~~~
bobthepanda
If you think that unpredictable American retail shift work would give you more
vacation than a German factory, I have a bridge to sell you.

America has zero required vacation per year. Germany has 20 days every year
for a five day working-week.

~~~
nonford150
Required and actual are very different animals. Just b/c the govt doesn't say
you must doesn't mean employers don't provide good benefits. Reddit always
says race to the bottom but a quick look around doesn't support it.

~~~
bobthepanda
Where are you located that retail workers get anything close to 20 days of
vacation annually? (Which is also separate from sick time, maternity leave,
etc.)

Even at a fairly cushy corporate job I don't get 20 days of vacation time.

~~~
nonford150
If you work in retail you expect not to have mush PTO. I do consider myself
lucky my job offers 6 weeks vacation plus sick/personal time off; but this is
one of the reasons I've stayed with them b/c of this benefit.

I still do not think the government should dictate to private businesses in
this area.

------
RickJWagner
Thank goodness the economy is moving in the right direction.

The US has low unemployment, rising wages, and a robust stock market. If any
of these were reversed, things would be different. At least we're on the right
trajectory.

As some of the posters here note, automation could reduce job prospects in the
near years ahead. I'm hoping retiring boomers (including myself) will open
enough slots to compensate for this.

~~~
einpoklum
The rise in wages is very moderate. See here for example:

[https://seekingalpha.com/article/4280594-median-household-
in...](https://seekingalpha.com/article/4280594-median-household-income-in-
june-2019)

Also, this doesn't account for coastal-vs-hinterland areas, which seems to be
an issue.

~~~
RickJWagner
The charts show that wages are at record high levels, and are trending in the
right direction.

I suppose we could hope that the record was set even higher, or that the trend
was moving even faster in the right direction?

My point is that things really are good. We can always hope for better, but we
need to understand that these are good times. (They won't always be so.)

~~~
bsanr2
What's your personal incentive to believe and spread this falsehood?

~~~
RickJWagner
Articles like this one give reason to believe wages are increasing, especially
at the bottom. Your take on it?

[https://www.axios.com/wage-increases-workers-2019-high-
low-s...](https://www.axios.com/wage-increases-workers-2019-high-low-
skill-5208fb9f-20c2-486a-b572-fc20737546f3.html)

~~~
bsanr2
That low wage workers have been treading or below water with their wage growth
vis a vis inflation and necessity costs (which have risen as much as twice the
rate of inflation) for decades now. Things are not "good” just because we may
- may! - be at the precipice of a return to sanity. In many respects they are
far worse than they've been in quite some time.

------
gogopuppygogo
How is this surprising in a world with increasing global labor supply and
levels of automation?

~~~
thatfrenchguy
It’s clearly societal choices: wages in the US for the poor and lower middle
class are really low compared to the cost of housing / decent food / health
care / education.

~~~
opportune
The lower middle class can afford decent food, just some of them don’t want to
eat within their means or aren’t cost conscious.

Actually I think innumeracy is a big problem for a lot of people with low
incomes. I have a relative who I suspect is innumerate and it’s both
fascinating and sad when you get insight into their budgeting/estimation
abilities.

~~~
pnutjam
Wow, that fancy talking sure makes me think you're smart. Maybe you can help
me. If I make x and everything I need to live costs x+y, what do I do? Die
slowly...? Work a 27 hour day?

~~~
opportune
I’m not saying the system isn’t rigged against poor people. But I do
personally know people who are just bad at budgeting or frequently get ripped
off because they don’t know how much things are supposed to cost, and probably
wouldn’t need to ask for help at the end of the month if they changed how they
spent money.

~~~
pnutjam
Often, people know what something should cost, but they have to buy it through
some other more expensive channel for any variety of reasons.

------
yters
'suck' is a relative term based on some standard. Is the standard chattel
slavery? Every single job in the US is spectacular in comparison. Is the
standard some cushy s/w dev job at a megatech company? Most jobs suck in
comparison.

~~~
bsanr2
It's interesting to note that expectations for the limits of what's acceptable
for labor are defined by, "Is it as bad as slavery?"

And for what it's worth, there is indeed "jobs" in this country that are
objectively as bad as slavery. Most Americans do not work them, but they do
help shape the market most Americans work in; and, in some cases, they are
outright competing with them.

~~~
coldtea
> _It 's interesting to note that expectations for the limits of what's
> acceptable for labor are defined by, "Is it as bad as slavery?"_

In the "land of the free" nonetheless!

~~~
AdrianB1
In the most famous country of recent slavery.

But I simply guess the comment was about the lack of a common baseline when
making comparisons.

------
lostgame
What else can you expect in a mass-manufacturing-based economy; where even the
act producing or manufacturing locally is worthy of pride?

Margins need to be as razor-thin as possible in order to complete, and payroll
is often one of the largest expenses.

As a result there will be a significant group of jobs by which little
experience is required and turnover may be high - but since the jobs don’t
require a lot of skill, the high turnover rate is not an issue.

For this job group, there is no reason to improve the working conditions, as,
from the outset - these workers are never expected to stay for long.

An individual like a Junior Software Developer working on a large codebase
that‘s existed for time, gets more valuable to the employer over the years, as
their knowledge of that company’s particular codebase grows, and how the
workflow of their company functions.

A Junior developer, then, has a career path - as they demonstrate their
knowledge in the codebase they move from Junior to Intermediate to Senior and
thusly by the time they may reach management they have demonstrated an
aptitude in it.

~~~
bsanr2
Labor is one of the largest expenses in part because it has to account for the
inefficiencies introduced by turnover (including on-ramping, i.e., training).
Many of the jobs deemed "unskilled" actually do require skill and experience
to perform in a proficient manner.

It's true that anyone can flip a burger or poor a cup of coffee, just as it's
true that anyone can hunt-and-peck a command; it's something else to be able
to manage a kitchen and dining room with one or two assistants during peak, 6
hours into a shift that was scheduled with only a week's notice, observing
food safety practices and producing the correct order from dozens of options
in a timely manner and with unflappable hospitality, as many food service jobs
now require of their employees. This while people complain about the
difficulty of hosting family for dinner once a year.

Class, race, and gender associations have much to do with our perceptions.

~~~
imtringued
The thing about unskilled jobs is that ability of being able to complete a
task is a pretty low bar. You can always increase productivity through work
experience.

~~~
bsanr2
The question then becomes at what "time to task completion" and "size of task
repertoire" does a job become economically viable for an employer. I tend to
think that the line between unskilled and skilled, barring educational or
professional requirements, parallels the line between a dialect and a
language: "skilled" work is "unskilled" work with a union.

------
rybosworld
"For the median job-seeker in Trump’s America, the odds may be good, but the
good jobs are an oddity."

This is lazy writing at best.

~~~
xwowsersx
Agreed. It's the classic case of not presenting any evidence or basis for one
of the more foundational points of an article.

------
Reedx
Thankfully you can create your own job or at least start moving in that
direction. It's easier than ever to do so and can often learn everything you
need online. And signs point to this being increasingly the case in both
respects.

~~~
badrequest
What will happen to those with ailing parents or young children to care for,
who find themselves with less time than even money?

~~~
Reedx
Working for yourself is much better for those of us in that situation. No
commute and control over your schedule helps tremendously.

------
tehjoker
Jobs that suck are that way not because they need to suck, it's because it's
in the interest of the people offering them (people with more power than the
people they are hiring) to offer them in the most humiliating, dangerous, and
cheapest way possible. If you don't like it, you can be replaced.

~~~
wolfgke
> because it's in the interest of the people offering them (people with more
> power than the people they are hiring) to offer them in the most
> humiliating, dangerous, and cheapest way possible.

"cheapest" is obvious, but why "most humiliating, dangerous"? What incentive
do the latter serve?

~~~
bsanr2
It's a way to tip the turnover scales in favor of the employer. Dangerous jobs
weed out the people who care enough to complain about conditions that are less
dangerous but still degrading. If you're willing to put up with situations
where people lose limbs or die, you're probably not worried about lunch break
violations. You also have the option of giving a "problem" employee the worst
tasks until they decide to leave.

"Humiliating" is also good for employers, when they can get away with it. If
you make your employees put up with undignified conditions - long hours, short
breaks, arbitrary rules, embarrassing or onerous security policies - you
appropriate their focus or attention either directly or through the stress of
having to put up with those circumstances. That's less time and cognitive
power to organize, budget properly, find another job, or really plan for the
future in any way.

Your job as an employer is to squeeze as much work out of your employees as
possible. That means doing everything legal to keep them from leaving (have to
make back that training investment), or to have the option to quickly dismiss
them if they're sub-optimal or causing problems.

I'm working from the perspective of having worked in retail and supply chain,
but HN's main demographic should listen up: crunch is a solved problem. Think
about what your employers have to gain from not implementing those known
solutions.

~~~
wolfgke
> Your job as an employer is to squeeze as much work out of your employees as
> possible. That means doing everything legal to keep them from leaving (have
> to make back that training investment), or to have the option to quickly
> dismiss them if they're sub-optimal or causing problems.

If one accepts this point, both "dangerous" and "humilating" _are_
counterproductive for the employer, since these properties of jobs provide a
good incentive for an employee to leave as soon as he/she can afford it.

~~~
bsanr2
Except for the ways explained above that those conditions serve to make
leaving difficult.

------
seibelj
If work was fun it would be called vacation. If you actually like your job and
find it stimulating then you are lucky - myself included. You typically get
paid to work because it’s something you wouldn’t do for free, but is useful to
someone else.

~~~
coldtea
> _If you actually like your job and find it stimulating then you are lucky -
> myself included_

If you're among the lucky, then maybe try some empathy?

Not to mention the article is about bad paying, abusing, no opportunity jobs,
not about "fun vs work".

~~~
seibelj
Empathy for what? Someone has to be a garbage man, sorry not everyone can
write music and novels all day.

~~~
coldtea
Easy to say when one is not the garbage man...

Not to mention that it's not true that "someone has to be a garbage man"
(anymore so than a woman must "clean the dishes" in a household). People could
be responsible for cleaning up their own shit, or take turns to do it.

The same way Japanese schoolchildren are made to clean their own school
(toilets etc) - and in many armies, soldiers do that for their units too. So,
no some specific person relegated to clean up others' shit is not "required".

~~~
seibelj
I am constantly amazed by the guilt people feel that others have to work jobs
that they feel are “beneath” them. No, we don’t need some sort of utopian
society where we all rotate jobs so we all get to experience what being a
garbage man is like. You are an elitist that believes “dirty jobs” are
shameful and something to feel bad about. You must live an exhausting life.
I’m happy there are people all throughout society who still get stuff done and
keep the world turning.

~~~
coldtea
> _You are an elitist that believes “dirty jobs” are shameful and something to
> feel bad about._

Well, you are conveniently not a garbage man.

------
throwawaysea
I feel like a lot of these articles ignore the fact that conditions are better
than ever for almost everyone. Inequality as an absolute metric is not that
relevant if people have more real purchasing power. And a job being
undesirable is not relevant either - people shouldn’t feel entitled to getting
exactly the wage they want, doing exactly the job they want, living exactly
where they want, and so on. Their purchasing power is what ultimately matters.

Note for example, that GDP PPP per capita is at an all time high
[https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita-
pp...](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita-ppp)

Note that per IMF data, the US is higher on GDP PPP per capita than the
Netherlands, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, ... that is, the countries
often put on a pedestal by people on Twitter or Reddit:
[https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/OEMDC/WEO](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/OEMDC/WEO)

Also poverty rate is dropping, food insecurity is dropping, and more:
[https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/president-trumps-
policie...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/president-trumps-policies-
continue-benefit-americans-especially-disadvantaged/) (Original data/reports
at
[https://census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-266.ht...](https://census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-266.html))

~~~
Ancalagon
Taken at face-value, your comment reads like "a significant portion of the
population should not expect to live with the same quality of life their
parents had, in the same city that their parents live/grew up in"

~~~
hellisothers
People should certainly have an expectation that their quality of life could
be the same if not better than their parent’s, 100%. Why should anybody be
guaranteed to live in the same area they grew up in though? Why should anybody
have the right to live in any particular area, especially at a particular QOL?

