
What is a “Good Job?” - MaysonL
http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2016/04/what-is-good-job.html
======
awinter-py
Decline in on-the-job training (buried at the bottom) is the most import stat
here; more important even than declining tenure.

Training speaks to what employers are 'buying' when they hire someone and
engages with other trending topics in econ research: the changing skills-mix
of jobs (i.e. the weakness in the middle), the employability of college grads
as the metric for the worth of a degree.

A positive take on this is that free resources make it easier for people to
self-train so jobs don't _have_ to train you. The negative take is that 'labor
alone' is of declining value and we're increasingly employing people for their
'information content', not their rote performance.

------
henrik_w
In my view, programmer scores very high in the criteria mentioned: it's
creative, non-repeating (to a degree) and collaborative in nature. It also
pays well, and is in demand and pretty future proof.

[http://henrikwarne.com/2014/12/08/5-reasons-why-software-
dev...](http://henrikwarne.com/2014/12/08/5-reasons-why-software-developer-is-
a-great-career-choice/)

[http://henrikwarne.com/2012/06/02/why-i-love-
coding/](http://henrikwarne.com/2012/06/02/why-i-love-coding/)

~~~
amelius
Yes, but every evening you are taking all of your problems home with you.
Programming has a very high load on the memory.

In contrast doctors and lawyers don't even have this kind of memory load. For
example, medical records are mostly sufficient; we often understand if a
doctor has to look things up; however, if a programmer doesn't remember how a
program is structured, things get difficult quickly.

~~~
IllegalAlien
You couldn't be more wrong.

Lawyers take their work home with them every day. They never have any rest at
all, because they have to respect certain deadlines and they have multiple
clients breathing down their neck. Next to that, there's also the question of
morality: Sometimes a lawyer has to make immoral decisions to get the right
outcome. This is especially true in penal law.

Doctors have to face the consequences of wrong diagnoses. If one of the
patients dies because of an error the doctor made, you can be damn sure he'll
carry that mistake with him for the rest of his life. Not only morally, but
also legally and it could be a possible career killer.

Programmers have it the easiest, they only have computational problems to
worry about. While programming is without a doubt strenuous on the mind, it is
by no means affected by morality and therefore incomparable to practicing law
or medicine.

~~~
amelius
> Lawyers take their work home with them every day.

But how long does each case take?

> Doctors have to face the consequences of wrong diagnoses.

I found this:

> Medical misconduct is defined as behavior that deviates from duty by a
> healthcare professional. Examples of medical misconduct include, but are not
> limited to the following: practicing as a healthcare professional
> fraudulently, practicing with gross incompetence or medical negligence,
> practicing while impaired by alcohol, drugs, physical or mental disability,
> being convicted of a crime, filing a false report; guaranteeing that
> treatment will result in a cure, refusing to provide services because of
> race, creed, color or national origin, performing services that are not
> authorized by the patient, harassing, abusing or intimidating a patient,
> ordering excessive tests, and/or abandoning or neglecting a patient in need
> of immediate care.

It is a bit more subtle, but it seems that if doctors just follow the book,
they will be fine.

My personal experience with doctors is that they always have to look my data
up. Every time I visit one, I hear: "let's see what case we have here" (and
looks at computer screen).

~~~
IllegalAlien
1\. Honestly? Years. Sadly courts don't work as quickly as television series
suggest. Every case has a number of deadlines for appealing, pleading, etc.
Also, a very high number of cases are handled simultaneously by one lawyer.
This one of the reasons why young associates burn out pretty easily.

2\. Medical misconduct as defined by law, with some examples included (a non-
exhaustive list). What is your point with this? That article is purportedly
vague so that medical accidents could be judged on a case by case basis. In
other words, if the opposition has a good lawyer, you're screwed.

And you're forgetting the point of my post. Even if the doctor didn't do
anything wrong legally, he'll still be haunted by the loss of a patient if he
could have prevented it somehow.

------
eli_gottlieb
Well, I'd have to say that a good job is one which pays you a lot to do
comparatively little. But you know, that's because unlike most people giving
career advice, I actually expect workers to have a sense of self-interest and
economic rationality rather than investing their entire emotional well-being
and identity in their job.

> I certainly don't expect that we will ever reach a future in which jobs will
> be all about deep internal fulfillment, with a few giggles and some
> comradeship tossed in. As my wife and I remind each other when one of us has
> an especially tough day at the office, there's a reason they call it "work,"
> which is closely related to the reason that you get paid for doing it.

Good. So let's just get rid of work to the greatest degree we can. What is
even the point of increasing productivity if it won't buy us more stuff for
less work?

~~~
DaveWalk
I often think about this Russelian argument about work, specifically via _In
Praise of Idleness._ [1] Sometimes to me it feels dirty to contemplate doing
nothing, being idle, without direction as a lifestyle choice.

To your point, what can be done? On one hand, some argue that we've come a
long way from Russel's era, and that work and life is much better off and
closer to his philosophical goal than we credit. On the other hand, this
discussion clearly shows a desire to look for the essense of what make a job
"good."

[1][http://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-
idleness/?si...](http://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-
idleness/?single=1)

------
mdorazio
Engagement is only part of the story, though. There are a tremendous number of
workers in the US who:

\- Can't even work as many hours as they want to

\- Don't get benefits typically associated with full-time work (healthcare,
retirement plans, etc.)

\- Are stuck in low-end service jobs even though they are qualified for
higher-end jobs

\- Are doing contract work even though they want the stability of full-time
work

Engagement in a job becomes important after a certain point, but we're still a
long way from there outside of the SV employment bubble.

------
BuckRogers
Easy answer to this one from my perspective- 'any job that respects the 8-hour
workday.'

Which seem to be few and far between, and in the US completely dependent on
having a good manager. Nothing else to say or add. This changes everything for
me, my family life, my happiness and my productivity.

~~~
ktRolster
You need to respect yourself to get that. If you're willing to work more than
8 hours, managers will take it from you.

There's a good book about how to prevent managers from walking all over you:
[http://www.amazon.com/The-Clean-Coder-Professional-
Programme...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Clean-Coder-Professional-
Programmers/dp/0137081073)

The opening chapters describe programmers in crunch time, and compare them
with the lawyers at the same company who leave promptly on time. The rest of
the book discusses how to achieve that for yourself.

~~~
BuckRogers
Interesting perspective. I've found that certain places I've worked, they
overload you and do everything they can to keep you over time.

Usually the scenario that other people lay out is that you have to stay late
and put in that time your first year or two. Then you can go back to being a
9-5 (though in many orgs this shifts from 11-7 or 10-6 to give the illusion
you're working later rather than walking out at 5PM).

I disagree with this because then you set a standard that you'll stay late,
but on the other hand you can't be let go if you have mouths to feed.

I'm more than strong enough to walk out the door, but the thing I think you're
missing is that it's usually NOT the manager at fault here. It's the other
employees. They encourage this culture, either brainwashed or hoping it will
get them ahead.

American work culture is completely upside down. Bottom line is that the org
and laws shouldn't force you to stand for yourself in this regard. Every 1
minute of overtime should result in severe penalties for anyone who has any
employee go over. So much that they're hustling you out the door at 5PM.
That's how it is in other places, like France. A place I've both lived and
worked.

~~~
ktRolster
_but the thing I think you 're missing is that it's usually NOT the manager at
fault here. It's the other employees. They encourage this culture, either
brainwashed or hoping it will get them ahead_

tbh it doesn't really matter to me who gets the blame....the only thing I care
about is what _I_ can do to fix the situation.

~~~
BuckRogers
Yeah you're right. I'm going to check into that book and see what it has to
say. I'm in a good work situation myself right now, but mostly due to a
manager who is pretty easy going. I worked in an office for 2 years and 3
years from home now, and I'm very responsible and always get everything done,
so he has no worries.. it just works. But with a new workplace I'd be back in
the furnace.

------
galfarragem
A "good job" is a job that rewards you well for doing meaningful work.

A job that doesn't reward you well or doesn't provide you with meaningful work
will hardly ever be considered a long term "good job".

~~~
neogodless
What do you mean by "reward"? If we believe what Alfie Kohn tells us about
rewards and their effect on intrinsic motivation, we might argue that the job
simply has to compensate sufficiently to remove certain life stresses (i.e.
the $75k per household minimum), while allowing the worker to make meaningful
choices, create impact and increase skills (ideally in the Flow state of
learning.)

[http://www.alfiekohn.org/blogs/evidence-incentives-
fail/](http://www.alfiekohn.org/blogs/evidence-incentives-fail/)

~~~
galfarragem
By rewarding you well I mean (using your words): "compensate sufficiently to
remove certain life stresses" and compensate sufficiently to add some life
pleasures.

------
LoSboccacc
if you want true engagement and real passion let the worker partecipate in the
company profits based on his contributions.

~~~
seren
Anecdotally, I have a bonus linked to my company profit that are usually
between half and full month of salary.

This does not motivate me at all. I actually always forget about it until I
receive the amount each year.

This is seems counter intuitive but I work in such a big company that I don't
even understand which profits are taken into account to calculate it. Is it
the global profit of my division ? or all divisions for my country or region ?
(I actually believe this is the latter).

So some year you deliver a project late and you get a big bonus and the next
year, you are exceptionally on time and don't get anything.

I am sure it works for smaller company where you can measure very directly the
effect of your contribution, but past a certain point, it is hard to measure
or understand your impact.

~~~
maxxxxx
My bonus which is in the range of 10-20% of yearly income definitely makes me
feel more appreciated.

~~~
noobiemcfoob
You bring up a good distinction about the bonus as a percentage of your
income.

In contrast, my bonuses are on the order of 2-5%. I appreciate them, but
they're so small overall and so removed from my actual efforts in the company
that it mostly comes across as noise in my budget.

------
JDiculous
"Good Job" is an oxymoron

~~~
jpindar
I feel very sorry for you.

~~~
pasquinelli
when you're working a job, you're giving away the product of your labor.
everything you make is owned by your boss. you're compensated with money for
the time you spend working. you need money, but time is incredibly precious.

if my situation changed and i didn't need it any longer, no way in hell would
i keep my job. my job is good, in that the circumstances are such that the
alternative is worse, but that's a pretty weak definition of good. it's a
necessary evil. of course i'd rather keep the product of my own labor, and i'd
rather have the freedom to use my time without suffering due to a lack of
money. what's there to feel sorry for about that?

------
m23khan
My definition of 'good job' is:

\- The pay is in-line with industry standard. \- Time seems to fly away when
you are working (aka not bored). \- When you leave the job, you leave the job
as a better person and with better knowledge/skillset.

~~~
milkytron
I completely agree, and what makes a great job would be walking out the door
and having a sense of fulfillment that you are having a positive impact on the
world and genuinely care for the work you do.

