Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaggederest | Hacker News Reader

Doing janitorial work is not a mistake, but being a janitor for 40 years certainly is.

It's not the core job, it's the fact that there's zero growth or mobility even possible that is the issue.

Life isn't all about getting promoted. Loads of people get far more satisfaction from knowing they're carrying out an important duty than they do from knowing they got promoted from Javascript Ninja to Javascript Assassin.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying getting promoted. I'm saying getting better at being a janitor, or rotating between different properties, or learning to do a little light maintenance, or operate a lift or clean windows, or anything to break up the 100% identical routine.

If you're a contracted employee, there's zero investment in you as an employee. You come in, do the task, and leave.

You're touching upon a little of something called 'The Growth Mindset' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindset#Fixed_and_growth

In the Bay Area schools my kids attend, they are working hard to emphasize this growth mindset. I think it's huge component in job mobility, whether it be upward or sideways.

>It's not the core job, it's the fact that there's zero growth or mobility even possible that is the issue.

Not everyone is a 'striver.' Some folks just want to pay their bills and enjoy what time they can with their family and friends.

Even those 'non-striver' people would prefer to have growth over time, in their position, wage, and skills. Humans are not static - we like to learn and we get very frustrated when we can't improve over time.

Do you think everybody finds growth and meaning in their job? Many people find it in their family, in sport, in clubs, and work is just a wage.

And yet, the Janitor in this piece can't afford to take a holiday, so is it a stretch to assume she doesn't have much free time either?!?

Yes, if she's hourly, because they probably won't pay overtime.

Maybe the fact that she's a single mom with 4 kids is a factor too. I think a janitor with a single dependent would have a more acceptable standard of living.

Are you making a modest proposal that people should go from four kids to one, post facto?

I think everyone deserves to be able to have vacation time, especially single parents.

I'm not proposing anything. Just suggesting that there are more factors than income that affect 'inequality'.

An article that focusses on inequality due to low income should perhaps pick an example with a more typical family situation.

Rewind 50 years, and it would be highly typical for a janitor to support a wife and 3 kids on HIS salary - families were larger, and mothers didn't work. The fact that a working single mom can't support her four kids today is indicative in and of itself.

Would that janitor have many vacations too? And decent college funds? Healthcare?

Yes, yes, and yes. Janitorial staff at a Ford plant in ~1965 would make enough to own their own house, vacation once a year (probably not by plane but...), and college was percentage-wise ridiculously cheaper - 30x if my calculations are correct, which they probably aren't, but hey. Healthcare would have unquestionably been provided by their employer. And all that on only a single income for a family of four, no less.

... and with a defined-benefit pension as well, meaning no need for 401k contributions out of their salary, and no risk of losing that money due to poor investment decisions.

> I think everyone deserves

To live a life free of consequences? As in have more kids, same quality of life?

How will that work?

> everyone deserves..

And who pays?

>To live a life free of consequences?

To live a fulfilling life without the constant fear of not being able to adequately provide for yourself or your offspring?

>And who pays?

Since it'd be us, collectively, as a society who would benefit it'd make sense for us, collectively, as a society to pay.

> To live a fulfilling life without the constant fear

And this comes, for free, with no obligations? What is the standard for a "fulfilling life"? One child? A hundred? If I think my life will be fulfilled by skydiving, or playing XBox, or hookers and blow - should the state pay for those as well?

> it'd be us, collectively, as a society who would benefit

What you are describing is a market, but with no feedback or control; When someone ends up a burden on society due to a poor upbringing, does "society" get a refund?

If we are paying for people to bring up children, it would make more sense if the we initiated it; rather than people self-select for parenthood and get child welfare as an individual right.

I don't think everybody finds all of their growth and meaning in their job, but I do think that everyone would like to have at least some growth and meaning in their job. Even if all you're doing is getting better at the job itself, people value mastery and expertise.

Why does the growth and change have to come from the job?

As a society, if we figure out an economic system which doesn't lead to inflation, then all would benefit by not having to grow their net worth, and in turn, have a job that doesn't have any growth prospects.

How are growth prospect and inflation related? You can keep your net worth by investing into assets which have growth above the inflation level which isn't that hard.

By growth, I meant increase in wages to at least keep up with inflation. Janitorial jobs haven't kept up with inflation. Nowadays, rent increases by about 10% YoY. But wages don't increase by that much.

It is actually entirely fine, from the perspective of getting the job done, if someone is a janitor for forty years. There is no reason that being useful should net out to a bad life.

Right. I'm saying there's no opportunity, not that there should be a requirement. I'm saying that we're trapping poor people in a world where they are totally powerless and that is fundamentally evil.

As long as there are old, ugly men who want to have sex with young, beautiful women no matter the cost to either party, economic exploitation will remain at the heart of civilization, stunting our growth to the point of deformity.

Interestingly enough I don't think that's actually the warping factor any more. It used to be, certainly, but I think these days we've gone beyond "I would like to own people as chattel property", and all the way to "I want to be the biggest metaphorical genitalia in my particular subregion of the country"

I see your point, though it does seem like these are both extensions of the same underlying instinctual desires present in males, mainly the need for dominance (expressed in only a small percentage of the population for evolutionary reasons) and the need for sexual gratification / production of offspring. Being the biggest metaphorical genitalia around will lead to fulfillment of both of those things.

So, let's make growth and mobility possible for janitors. The whole point of the article is that it used to be, so we should be able to do it again.

That's exactly what I'm saying, and I'm not sure why people in this thread are misunderstanding it.

I thought you were saying that growth or mobility was inherently impossible for a janitor. Maybe because you describe being a janitor for 40 years as a mistake rather than as a failure of the system. Anyway, if you meant it the other way around then consider my reply some extra support for the idea.

I was just using the parent comment verbiage. Perhaps I should have quoted it.

I meant a mistake by society, i.e. it's a mistake to put people in a dead-end job, functionally ever.

Gotcha. Maybe it could have been worded better but I understand what you mean now, so it's all good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com