Our City Online

Messageboard - Everyday Chit Chat

Define 'real job'

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Everyday Chit Chat Define ‘real job’

This topic contains 54 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  TomOver 2 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 55 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #449213

    upstairs
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    TomOver said:
    ‘Participation’ is one of the words that jumps out. But could you elaborate on what seems even more intriguing : the “great process of putting meaning into the unknown”?

    Yes, one is either deriving meaning from the environment or putting meaning into the environment. Myths, stories, logic, philosophy and belief. Of course we are in a vast unknown, simply peer into the starry sky at night. So, humanity is stumbling along, taking courage through it’s total experience to interface with the unknown. Imagine a large beehive with legs, stumbling along, marching over the next hill to peer out and discover further what our existence is about. Why do we exist, beyond being a mutated vestige of a balanced component within the eco sphere.

    So, we are all stumbling along, with our temporal individual existences, looking for comfort from the howling winds and thunderous rain of the unknown and it’s terror that cuts into our short temporal life.

    So, the environment that I speak of, where meaning is applied and taken, is our civilization, societal construct. Humanity has infinite directions in which to go, we simply appear the way we do because of the blind direction that has already been taken. If man was lean, he could collectively run and jump, dance in any direction it felt, lean being under an efficient organized system of belief, a universal system of sorts.

    Oh, so the point of that statement is that we are all participating in the direction that humanity is heading, so the greater the participation the more our power process is activated, rather than being a passenger , we become the driver. Though it’s more a spectrum of gray rather than two opposing poles. outside of taking care of basic biological imperatives, we are given breathing room to scan the horizon and participate in the human directive.

    #449214

    TomOver
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    The question of what a ‘real job’ is may relate to the question of what knowledge, skills, and attitudes are valuable to us. The answer may depend on the situation.

    I venture many people from rural Mexico, for example, who might not know much about Calculus or Regression Analysis, might be able to perform circles around many of us when it comes to planting, caring for, and harvesting crops.

    This bias about what skills,knowledge, and attitudes matter not only exists across cultures but across generations as well. For example, you couldn’t converse about Nietzsche or Marx with my paternal grandparents who were farmers from Italy, but they were accomplished wine makers, and grew much of their own food, sharing both with other people near Sharon, Pennsylvania.

    This also applies to the usual disputes about welfare ( for the poor, though not about the issue welfare for corporations and the rich). It’s more the case that some of us have a narrow view about what skills, knowledge, and attitudes matter than it is the case that certain segments of our society simply want something for nothing.

    Given what I hear from city officials as well as some advocacy groups (ie Consider Biking) and reporters –including you Walker—it seems some of us overlook the fact that Columbus depends on many types of work that are not done by ‘young urban professionals’ or the so-called ‘creative class.’

    All due respect, but maybe we’d hear that kind of talk less if we took a more holistic view of what it takes to make our city function.

    #449215

    TomOver
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    upstairs said:
    Yes, one is either deriving meaning from the environment or putting meaning into the environment. Myths, stories, logic, philosophy and belief. Of course we are in a vast unknown, simply peer into the starry sky at night. So, humanity is stumbling along, taking courage through it’s total experience to interface with the unknown. Imagine a large beehive with legs, stumbling along, marching over the next hill to peer out and discover further what our existence is about. Why do we exist, beyond being a mutated vestige of a balanced component within the eco sphere.

    So, we are all stumbling along, with our temporal individual existences, looking for comfort from the howling winds and thunderous rain of the unknown and it’s terror that cuts into our short temporal life.

    So, the environment that I speak of, where meaning is applied and taken, is our civilization, societal construct. Humanity has infinite directions in which to go, we simply appear the way we do because of the blind direction that has already been taken. If man was lean, he could collectively run and jump, dance in any direction it felt, lean being under an efficient organized system of belief, a universal system of sorts.

    Oh, so the point of that statement is that we are all participating in the direction that humanity is heading, so the greater the participation the more our power process is activated, rather than being a passenger , we become the driver. Though it’s more a spectrum of gray rather than two opposing poles. outside of taking care of basic biological imperatives, we are given breathing room to scan the horizon and participate in the human directive.

    Please offer an example with which to express these concepts in less abstract terms.

    #449216

    upstairs
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Stand outside of the human sphere and study it from a distance. Do not get distracted from the myriad of quibbles, conflicts, shimmery displays or even achievements. At a distance, you begin to see this great ball of energy, this orgy of activity.

    So, in terms of “real job”, the closer you are to power, the more realistic your life will be as you will be constructing content for humanity vs taking content to be absorbed. So a real job could be ruler of the world.

    Though, and I wanted to be careful not to go off topic, I think the term “real job” applies to being able to cover the biological imperatives and even have room for offspring.

    #449217

    JonMyers
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    TomOver said:
    An acronym comes to mind A.S.K.—-attitude, knowledge, and skill. These apply to survival and quality of life. The latter involves the satisfaction from having a sense of purpose.

    Working, as you say, on a project-by-project basis pertains to having social networks based on some type of reciprocity and/or some sort of pay-it-forward process.

    I cringe at the thought of working at the same place for 40 years, doing the same tasks. But my perspective is shaped by the times in which there seems more of a focus on (and requirement for) being flexible within social and occupational networks.

    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?

    #449218

    cheap
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    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

    #449219
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    That’s beautiful! Good work!

    #449220

    myliftkk
    Participant
    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.

    #449221

    clancy12
    Member
    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/

    #449222

    JonMyers
    Participant
    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.

    #449223

    JonMyers
    Participant
    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.

    #449224

    myliftkk
    Participant
    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.

    #449225

    JonMyers
    Participant
    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.

    #449226

    clancy12
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    BuenaVista said:
    To me it is one that requires either an education or a trade.

    So people that have a job that does not require a degree or vocational training don’t have a real job?

    #449227

    TomOver
    Participant
    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 ?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 55 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?