RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
i restore old gun parts,and furniture.
one of my new neighbors brought me a nickel plated receiver from his dad's shotgun that was destroyed by water damage years ago.
the smile on his face when he saw how it came out gave my day meaning
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Everyday Chit Chat
Define 'real job'
[55 posts] [17 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
JonMyers said:
Many servers will be replaced by machines, by computers and by changes in how business operates.
Are you adding value in a unique and irreplaceable way?
Shortened to just the operative points, both with which I disagree.
Sure, many existing severs will be replaced by machines, but then many opportunities of service will open up elsewhere. For example, I paid someone to shortcut my laptop search for me. Instead of me spending hours hovering over laptop choices, tweaks in technology, and reading godknowshowmany real and false reviews online. I told one guy whose passion for machines way exceeds mine what I wanted to accomplish with it, how much power I needed, how long I needed it to last, and gave him the budget I wanted to stay in. End result, a half hour of my time at Microcenter tops including checkout, and I've got my machine, which has more than met my needs since. The elimination of service opportunities, often simple ones (let's just put that out there), are more than matched by the unexploited opportunities for service in areas that are currently underserved.
Most physical value adds can be replaced by machines given enough time and resources. Even creators themselves can be written out of the process entirely. Isn't that the whole concept behind Nike's design your own shoe interface, or progressive AI, or meta-programming if we really want to go there? There's very little physical processes that engineers cannot effectively concoct a low maintenance replacement for so long as the margins are high enough. What machines can't do though, is replace the metaphysical experience which most human beings crave as social animals.
The difference is really teaching people how to exploit the value they are capable of adding to the economy (and that value will have to adjust and change over time), rather than having them expect others (employers) to exploit and endless supply of it out of them by force.
Posted 1 year ago # -
clancy12
Login to Send PM
JonMyers said:
A lot of the book is examining work, the nature of work presently and how it will continue to be impacted and evolve due to globalization and the continued revolution of information technology.
I thought this was an interesting quote:
Forget blue-collar and white-collar. There are two types of workings in our economy: creators and servers. Creators are the ones driving productivity - writing code, designing chips, creating drugs and running search engines. Servers on the other hand, service these creators (and other servers) by building homes, providing food, offering legal advice and working at the department of motor vehicles. Many servers will be replaced by machines, by computers and by changes in how business operates.
This dichotomy between "creators" and "servers" focuses attention on the most important question every working will have to ask himself or herself: Am I adding value by doing something unique and irreplaceable?
While I don't necessarily see the world in those terms, I think the quote does lead to an important question, which might define what a real job is now and in the future.
Are you adding value in a unique and irreplaceable way?
"Adding value" to what? Perhaps this? http://www.dailywritingtips.com/beware-of-buzzword-bingo/
Posted 1 year ago # -
JonMyers
HCMC, Vietnam ✈
Login to Send PM
myliftkk said:
Shortened to just the operative points, both with which I disagree.Sure, many existing severs will be replaced by machines, but then many opportunities of service will open up elsewhere. For example, I paid someone to shortcut my laptop search for me. Instead of me spending hours hovering over laptop choices, tweaks in technology, and reading godknowshowmany real and false reviews online. I told one guy whose passion for machines way exceeds mine what I wanted to accomplish with it, how much power I needed, how long I needed it to last, and gave him the budget I wanted to stay in. End result, a half hour of my time at Microcenter tops including checkout, and I've got my machine, which has more than met my needs since. The elimination of service opportunities, often simple ones (let's just put that out there), are more than matched by the unexploited opportunities for service in areas that are currently underserved.
Most physical value adds can be replaced by machines given enough time and resources. Even creators themselves can be written out of the process entirely. Isn't that the whole concept behind Nike's design your own shoe interface, or progressive AI, or meta-programming if we really want to go there? There's very little physical processes that engineers cannot effectively concoct a low maintenance replacement for so long as the margins are high enough. What machines can't do though, is replace the metaphysical experience which most human beings crave as social animals.
The difference is really teaching people how to exploit the value they are capable of adding to the economy (and that value will have to adjust and change over time), rather than having them expect others (employers) to exploit and endless supply of it out of them by force.
I don't disagree, but I would add that the services you describe are more unique, which is the point.
Posted 1 year ago # -
JonMyers
HCMC, Vietnam ✈
Login to Send PM
clancy12 said:
"Adding value" to what? Perhaps this? http://www.dailywritingtips.com/beware-of-buzzword-bingo/Yeah, "value" is such a big word and hard to comprehend. It could also be interpreted as dumb it down, always be plain spoken.
Posted 1 year ago # -
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
JonMyers said:
I don't disagree, but I would add that the services you describe are more unique, which is the point.But not irreplaceable, and that's my point.
Uniqueness is a function of time after all. That which is unique today, is not unique tomorrow, and may be best abstracted to a software or mechanical process in a year. The false dichotomy setup by talking about the world as one where it's servicer vs. creator and you have to pick sides misses the whole point. Creators may create things that society broadly rejects, much as servicers may provide a service society broadly devalues. The key is to make the right choice at the right time, while understanding that this is a choice you will make many times over your lifetime.
Adaptability is key now. I'm only interested in employees and coworkers that can adapt to my needs today. What they did yesterday is meaningless, and what they think they should be doing in five years has no bearing on the job in front of them right now.
Posted 1 year ago # -
JonMyers
HCMC, Vietnam ✈
Login to Send PM
myliftkk said:
But not irreplaceable, and that's my point.Uniqueness is a function of time after all. That which is unique today, is not unique tomorrow, and may be best abstracted to a software or mechanical process in a year. The false dichotomy setup by talking about the world as one where it's servicer vs. creator and you have to pick sides misses the whole point. Creators may create things that society broadly rejects, much as servicers may provide a service society broadly devalues. The key is to make the right choice at the right time, while understanding that this is a choice you will make many times over your lifetime.
Adaptability is key now. I'm only interested in employees and coworkers that can adapt to my needs today. What they did yesterday is meaningless, and what they think they should be doing in five years has no bearing on the job in front of them right now.
Again, I don't disagree. And again, I said I don't necessarily see the world in the terms quoted from the book. I thought it was an interesting perspective and starting point for a discussion, but overly simplistic.
I do think adaptability is key as well. It always has been, but... I think we're coming off a period where you could survive quite nicely with minimal adaptation. That's winding down. The present need to adapt is also true of organizations, companies, universities, government, etc.. everything is long overdue for a reset.
Adaptability is also a segway into being irreplaceable. If a worker or organization is not adapting they're likely to become obsolete.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TomOver
lovecause.org
Login to Send PM
JonMyers said:
A book I've been reading reminded me of you and this conversation. I'm reading That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back by Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum.A lot of the book is examining work, the nature of work presently and how it will continue to be impacted and evolve due to globalization and the continued revolution of information technology.
I thought this was an interesting quote:
Forget blue-collar and white-collar. There are two types of workings in our economy: creators and servers. Creators are the ones driving productivity - writing code, designing chips, creating drugs and running search engines. Servers on the other hand, service these creators (and other servers) by building homes, providing food, offering legal advice and working at the department of motor vehicles. Many servers will be replaced by machines, by computers and by changes in how business operates.
This dichotomy between "creators" and "servers" focuses attention on the most important question every working will have to ask himself or herself: Am I adding value by doing something unique and irreplaceable?
While I don't necessarily see the world in those terms, I think the quote does lead to an important question, which might define what a real job is now and in the future.
Are you adding value in a unique and irreplaceable way?
I would like think that others would answer yes to that last question about me. But, I myself can't answer it. It reminds me of how I don't tell anyone " I love you." Whether what I do toward that person constitutes love is for that person to determine.
Similarly, others are the ultimate judges of whether I am bringing something of unique and irreplaceable value to the table.
How would YOU answer that question, Mr. Entrepreneur ?
Someone once told me that all models are incorrect but that some are more useful than others. As for this model that involves the dichotomy between 'creators' and 'servers,' even if I don't relate to it, and even if it can somehow be proven false in objective terms, it can still be useful.
But, to play along here within the framework of the model---at least as you briefly describe it; I haven't read the book---a mass of so-called 'servers' can become irreplaceable if they are organized.
For example, if a CEO of an airline who is a 'creator' leaves the company, you might argue that her absence has a bigger effect than if one jet mechanic leaves the company.
However, if all the jet mechanics refuse to work and are joined by the jet mechanics in other airlines, you might say that they as a group affect the company as much or even more than the absence of a CEO.
Again, I've not read the book, but the model that Friedman and Mandelbaum present seems reductionist. IMHO, we have an understanding of how human societies thrive that is better long-term if holistic models carry more weight----when we have to choose---than reductionist ones.
I venture, someone could use what Friedman and Mandelbaum write as a way to paper over having to concern ourselves with the possibly necrotic affects that inequalities in wealth are having in our body politic.
As I recall, in the 90s and early 2000s, economics textbooks and other sources of intellectual authority were filled with the idea that we shouldn't concern ourselves with jobs being sent to other countries nor with the loss of our manufacturing capacity given that we were (are still) entering a 'post-industrial' phase of our society.
A related term big corporations and their 'partners' (enablers ?) in government, media, and big research universities such as OSU like to use is "the knowledge economy."
To what extent is this talk about 'the knowledge economy' and about having a post-industrial economy in the US part of the propaganda machine that promotes corporate greed at the expense of everything else : our democracy, our political freedoms, and even our national interest, not to mention the habitability of our planet ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
TomOver
lovecause.org
Login to Send PM
JonMyers said:
A book I've been reading reminded me of you and this conversation. I'm reading That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back by Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum.A lot of the book is examining work, the nature of work presently and how it will continue to be impacted and evolve due to globalization and the continued revolution of information technology.
I thought this was an interesting quote:
Forget blue-collar and white-collar. There are two types of workings in our economy: creators and servers. Creators are the ones driving productivity - writing code, designing chips, creating drugs and running search engines. Servers on the other hand, service these creators (and other servers) by building homes, providing food, offering legal advice and working at the department of motor vehicles. Many servers will be replaced by machines, by computers and by changes in how business operates.
This dichotomy between "creators" and "servers" focuses attention on the most important question every working will have to ask himself or herself: Am I adding value by doing something unique and irreplaceable?
While I don't necessarily see the world in those terms, I think the quote does lead to an important question, which might define what a real job is now and in the future.
Are you adding value in a unique and irreplaceable way?
Thanks for discussing this book with me. I'm on the CML wait-list for it. All of its dozen or so copies are checked out.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TomOver
lovecause.org
Login to Send PM
TomOver said:
Thanks for discussing this book with me. I'm on the CML wait-list for it. All of its dozen or so copies are checked out.I'm # 33 on the list. Is this what it's like when you need open heart surgery in Canada ?
(Sorry, that's the best parody of a knee-jerk conservative I have time to muster right now. )
Posted 1 year ago # -
cheap
Westgate
Login to Send PM
Get the Video Plugin Posted 1 year ago # -
dreamy.mcdreamster
Login to Send PM
I would say 10K+/month in a way where you didn't get lucky and/or cash in on someone else's brilliance to get what you've got... that's a real "job"... if you can sustain it.
(and if you did make it the easy way people probably know)
Posted 1 year ago # -
JonMyers
HCMC, Vietnam ✈
Login to Send PM
TomOver said:
I would like think that others would answer yes to that last question about me. But, I myself can't answer it. It reminds me of how I don't tell anyone " I love you." Whether what I do toward that person constitutes love is for that person to determine.Similarly, others are the ultimate judges of whether I am bringing something of unique and irreplaceable value to the table.
How would YOU answer that question, Mr. Entrepreneur ?
Someone once told me that all models are incorrect but that some are more useful than others. As for this model that involves the dichotomy between 'creators' and 'servers,' even if I don't relate to it, and even if it can somehow be proven false in objective terms, it can still be useful.
But, to play along here within the framework of the model---at least as you briefly describe it; I haven't read the book---a mass of so-called 'servers' can become irreplaceable if they are organized.
For example, if a CEO of an airline who is a 'creator' leaves the company, you might argue that her absence has a bigger effect than if one jet mechanic leaves the company.
However, if all the jet mechanics refuse to work and are joined by the jet mechanics in other airlines, you might say that they as a group affect the company as much or even more than the absence of a CEO.
Again, I've not read the book, but the model that Friedman and Mandelbaum present seems reductionist. IMHO, we have an understanding of how human societies thrive that is better long-term if holistic models carry more weight----when we have to choose---than reductionist ones.
I venture, someone could use what Friedman and Mandelbaum write as a way to paper over having to concern ourselves with the possibly necrotic affects that inequalities in wealth are having in our body politic.
As I recall, in the 90s and early 2000s, economics textbooks and other sources of intellectual authority were filled with the idea that we shouldn't concern ourselves with jobs being sent to other countries nor with the loss of our manufacturing capacity given that we were (are still) entering a 'post-industrial' phase of our society.
A related term big corporations and their 'partners' (enablers ?) in government, media, and big research universities such as OSU like to use is "the knowledge economy."
To what extent is this talk about 'the knowledge economy' and about having a post-industrial economy in the US part of the propaganda machine that promotes corporate greed at the expense of everything else : our democracy, our political freedoms, and even our national interest, not to mention the habitability of our planet ?
I would say that entrepreneurs usually don't bring something of value to the table, nor do they usually introduce products or services, which are irreplaceable. The goal is to fail fast, learn and try again or move on. If an entrepreneur introduces a product or service, which truly solves pain or truly captivates an audience and entertains the market will vote with its wallet.
So, the way an entrepreneur asks this question is - are people willing to pay and then - prove it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Manatee
Granville
Login to Send PM
For me, a "real job" is doing work that actually needs to be done (according to my own standards), and being paid commensurately enough for it that I can provide for my physical needs.
I don't agree that any job with a paycheck is a good job. I don't want to have to turn my back on my moral structure and free will in order to physically survive. I don't believe those things are mutually exclusive, instead they are co-arising.
In particular, I resent the desire to eliminate physical work from my life. It seems obvious to me that my body is put together to function best under regular physical exertion, and not the kind that can be gained on a treadmill. I don't understand why work that includes physical work is seen as ignorant drudgery.
I see a lot of work, including physical work, that desperately needs to be done, all around me. But most of this work goes undone because no one has figured out a way to monetize it commensurately. So that's whnat I'm trying to do in my own life, and I think it's what I see a lot of creative people doing. Trying to commensurately monetize work that actually needs to be done. Trying to monetize non-divisive work that builds our culture instead of capitalizing on its divisions.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TomOver
lovecause.org
Login to Send PM
Manatee said:
For me, a "real job" is doing work that actually needs to be done (according to my own standards), and being paid commensurately enough for it that I can provide for my physical needs.I don't agree that any job with a paycheck is a good job. I don't want to have to turn my back on my moral structure and free will in order to physically survive. I don't believe those things are mutually exclusive, instead they are co-arising.
In particular, I resent the desire to eliminate physical work from my life. It seems obvious to me that my body is put together to function best under regular physical exertion, and not the kind that can be gained on a treadmill. I don't understand why work that includes physical work is seen as ignorant drudgery.
I see a lot of work, including physical work, that desperately needs to be done, all around me. But most of this work goes undone because no one has figured out a way to monetize it commensurately. So that's whnat I'm trying to do in my own life, and I think it's what I see a lot of creative people doing. Trying to commensurately monetize work that actually needs to be done. Trying to monetize non-divisive work that builds our culture instead of capitalizing on its divisions.
I wouldn't use a dichotomy between creative and non-creative people. I see being creative as a condition that each of us can grow into (perhaps early on with good parenting and other positive social conditions) and can slip out of--due to complacency--from time to time.
But if you're comfortable with it, please say more about "trying to commensurately monetize work that actually needs to be done" and "trying to monetize non-divisive work that builds our culture instead of capitalizing on its divisions" ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
cheap
Westgate
Login to Send PM
Manatee said:
For me, a "real job" is doing work that actually needs to be done (according to my own standards), and being paid commensurately enough for it that I can provide for my physical needs.I don't agree that any job with a paycheck is a good job. I don't want to have to turn my back on my moral structure and free will in order to physically survive. I don't believe those things are mutually exclusive, instead they are co-arising.
In particular, I resent the desire to eliminate physical work from my life. It seems obvious to me that my body is put together to function best under regular physical exertion, and not the kind that can be gained on a treadmill. I don't understand why work that includes physical work is seen as ignorant drudgery.
I see a lot of work, including physical work, that desperately needs to be done, all around me. But most of this work goes undone because no one has figured out a way to monetize it commensurately. So that's whnat I'm trying to do in my own life, and I think it's what I see a lot of creative people doing. Trying to commensurately monetize work that actually needs to be done. Trying to monetize non-divisive work that builds our culture instead of capitalizing on its divisions.
+1
Posted 1 year ago # -
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
Fascinating read on the "real jobs" that are out there for the blue collar workforce.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/new-blue-collar-temp-warehouses_n_1158490.html?page=1
Also fascinating is the linked comparison of Costco vs Walmart/Sam's Club corporate culture and that size itself really has nothing itself to do with culture.
Posted 1 year ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.