I Used to Write for Sports Illustrated. Now I Deliver Packages for Amazon
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
I feel a sense of loss when the "biodiversity" of what appear to be financially viable careers is declining.
The fact that a lot of people are making really good money doing artistic endeavors on the internet suggests that those endeavours are still valued.
I wonder if maybe we don't need as many artists because they reach a global audience now with less friction than ever. Anecdotally: I never would have subscribed to a sports magazine. I'm not into sports. But SBNation's YouTube series on weird sports history has me hooked.
I'm not sure what can be done, but I see an ever increasing number of people loosing benefits from, or loosing their careers entirely.
This isn't all caused by tech, but also by a change in the social contract between companies and and their employees. The idea of you working hard for a company your whole life, and even if your didn't make great pay, you were secure in the idea that you would be taken care of and have a place to work until you got your send off party and a gold watch.
When comparing what was to what is, from the perspective of security, safety, and prosperity of the worker, YouTube is barely on par with a freelance gig.
And I fear that if our country doesn't address these sort of issue very soon, we are going to see suffering in the elderly not known in our country for the last century.
A career in art isn't guaranteed, unless we reach a post-consumer utopia, where robots do all the work.
Hence, there's a saturation point in how much art is needed to saturate the demand, in an interconnected, digital, global world.
And those that are unable to fit into this saturated point have to find other ways of livelihood.
As an example, where food was a poorly paid profession before, there's lots of people making lots of careers in every little aspect of food, because their audience see pictures/video online and either orders for delivery or visits in vacation.
Would love to see some actual numbers here. My guess would've been that more people are making in aggregate more money off artistic endeavors on the internet, than in past decades. Look at the music industry, whose total value peaked and started falling, but is now back and has exceeded earlier peak, due to internet streaming. Diversity, meanwhile, seem bigger than ever. In the 80's you had a few mega stars raking in all the money whileas now there are millions of small producers each making small amounts. I don't buy this "troubled times" theory. The only trouble is the fact that a lot of former producers are getting replaced, but this is encouraging because if we're in the middle of a shift and the total market isn't shrinking it probably means there is more growth ahead.
Would you mind citing your data for this? What I've seen suggests the opposite:
https://www.ifpi.org/news/IFPI-GLOBAL-MUSIC-REPORT-2018
"Despite the recent uplift, revenues for 2017 are still only 68.4% of the market's peak in 1999."
And as far as I can tell, that 68.4% is based on nominal revenue. Inflation adjusted it works out to 2017 revenues being less than 47% of 1999 revenues, if I calculated correctly.
This can remain true even if the absolute size of the economy is still rising, so it can look like the rich are getting richer while the poor are also getting richer. Inequality is still rising, but the tide is lifting all boats.
But if we are going to compare or discuss this, I don't think the music industry is a fair place to start, as stated that was always a pretty crappy and controlled sector for individuals. With that said, from what I have read streaming as a whole hasn't provided better opportunities to individuals either, but again admittedly I can't cite sources to back up this claim.
But I think if you look at journalism, photography, marketing and advertisement, etc. These have all gone from careers to gigs, none of which provide for a long term path for securing a future.
When you calculate the tradition benefits (medical, dental, vision, retirement) as compensation it's a pretty obvious that the gig economy cost workers a lot, Including the peace of mind of knowing you'll have a career that will be a viable path to retirement.
I like many of us, are pretty isolated from these problems in tech because of demand, but I imagine 30 years ago, a senior writer at sports illustrated did to.
If you aren't concerned from a high level, look at where the money in our economy is going, it's moving away from individuals and into corporate profits, all while corporations are removing long term responsibilities to their workers.
And example of that would be, that almost no one has an active pension system any longer.
This is basically the core thoughts behind my troubled times response.
magazines/newspapers are used to having huge captive audiences that they can sway. the problem is this breeds suspicion and contempt among the userbase if their interests don't align.
if you are a creator,find your patrons and everything will be fine
> I’m an Aries, so it stands to reason that I’m partial to Dodge Ram ProMasters.
It's a shame that there isn't a way for him to continue making a living on his writing talent.
I really enjoyed this article. It's like "diaries of a call girl" for 50+ overqualified-but-underemployed men. Crossed with a Kevin Smith film.
If there was a github-style subscribe button that would notify me of his next article I would definitely click it. No idea if my "impression" contributed to the atlantic's bottom line (and presumably his paycheck) but I guarantee you I've never helped the bottom line of SI.
What I'm afraid of is that many of us reading this article now will have a similar story 20 or so years from now. Ouch!
“Lurching west in stop-and-go traffic on I-80 that morning, bound for Berkeley and a day of delivering in the rain, I had a low moment, dwelling on how far I’d come down in the world. Then I snapped out of it. I haven’t come down in the world. What’s come down in the world is the business model that sustained Time Inc. for decades. I’m pretty much the same writer, the same guy. I haven’t gone anywhere. My feet are the same.”
Maybe he doesn’t have the same stability or ‘prestige’ as his last job or his wife’s, but, hey, his last one turned out to not be so stable after all, and your ego can’t buy you a house or put food on the table.
Between the lines, his whole point is that no career is robust these days.
These jobs, these people slipping through the cracks are the transition to something I hope is better. But it's that in-between time, that many many people will suffer very badly.
Some people may be slipping through the cracks, but others are doing far better than anyone could ever imagine. Crises do stir stuff up, but in this case the net result to society is far too positive to imply it's a bad thing.
I think you have a point here: if I want to read about sports, I'm not going to read The Atlantic, I'm going to read some sports magazine. If I want to read about politics, well sports magazines and nude-women magazines aren't exactly what first comes to mind... but somehow, decades ago, this seemed to be the thinking for some odd reason.
What I see here is things being corrected to the way they should have been all along. You want to look at pictures of naked women? Find a publication that specializes in that. You want to read about politics? Find a different publication that specializes in that. The two have no business being in the same magazine.
I don't think there is a single area we aren't covering. So that's everything from lawyers, hr-personal, various office workers to nurses, pedagogues, teachers and various social workers. Hell in the past 4 years, we've even said good bye to one person in my department and three in IT. No one has been fired though, so there hasn't really been a big focus on it. A lot of positions simply haven't been refilled. Basically we're in the process of quietly doing to every workplace what the assembly-line did to factories 100 years ago.
It's created new jobs of course, there wasn't a digitization department 20 years ago after all, but even my own field of software engineering is changing. 20 years ago you'd need a team and half a year to build what a single developer can get running in the cloud in a week today. Who knows what it'll look like when I'm 57.
And anyway, this is a low-skill, low-wage profession. Even if it goes away to automation in a couple decades, there'll still be plenty of others that do not. So which particular one you're working in now is irrelevant. It's not like he needs to get into retail now or forever have that door closed to him.
That really is an interesting career progression.
I think that is something that you do that you fool yourself into thinking is important in some way, as if you yourself are important, when you are really not. You are a tool getting a job done for your company. Maybe the best tool (after all you got the gig) but still a tool just the same. The Presidents don't care about you and aren't your friend or you peer.
Sure it's something that you can relate that you did to impress people you know and good for career or reputation (job wise). But the truth is to that those people you have interviewed would almost certainly not take your call or be your friend anymore than most of us would end up befriending the person who takes our luggage to our hotel room. (Not saying that couldn't or hasn't or doesn't happen but very unlikely except as an outlier).
I will tell you something that I have learned about self important writers. Try getting them to even return your email unless you have something that they need. Meaning they are all on top of you when they need you for a story. But once that story is done (unless they plan another one) you will have a hard time getting any reply from them. They tend to be (by the nature of what they do) 'users' the same way many salesman are users (to get the sale). They make you feel as if they care about you personally when they do not really care at all.
Contrast this with many people here on HN who I am sure would be pretty likely to reply to a personal question or issue if you wrote and asked for some type of help. Go try that with a writer for a major (and formerly important) magazine or newspaper.
most of the time i click the twitter link, see that the author is having a meltdown/delightgasm about some completely unrelated thing and close the app on my phone in disgust
i almost never see any "discussions" about even recently published articles on an authors public social media
if i don't see a twitter on the author profile i'm not gonna bother mailing the person on an email id that probably never gets checked
> feigning nonchalance as I handed a cup of urine to the attendant and bid him good day.
I consider mandatory drug tests a massive invasion of privacy that only persists because workers don't (really) have the ability to shop around employers who don't do them. Besides they're only screening for illegal drugs but don't care about the really dangerous things (a lack of decent sleep being the worst).
> An honest recounting of this job must include my sometimes frantic searches for a place to answer nature’s call.
This is dehumanizing. This could be easily solved by requiring employers to provide e.g. these tiny camping toilets in the van - they don't take up much space (one parcel, maybe), and a "seat" can easily be fitted by rearranging a couple of rack plates without losing storage space.
But the biggest issue is this:
> Before it was taken out of service for repairs, I was often stuck with a ProMaster that had issues: Side-view mirrors spiderwebbed; the left mirror held fast to the body of the van by several layers of shrink-wrap. The headlights didn’t work unless flicked into “bright” mode, which means that when delivering after dark, I was blinding and infuriating oncoming motorists. [...] That’s when I heard a thud-thud-thud from the area of my right front tire, which was so old and bald that it had begun to shed four- and five-inch strips of rubber, which were thumping against the wheel well.
This is illegal and dangerous, both for the driver and for all people, animals and property around them.
All the "cost cutting" of Amazon doing deliveries instead of UPS, Fedex etc. does have to come from somewhere, and here it is done on public safety. I'm fine with competition, but not if public safety and worker/human rights are sacrificed for short-term profits for Jeff Bezos.
And what's the biggest issue: as a consumer, you do not have a choice when it comes to shipping - I'd gladly pay 1€ more a package if that would ensure that the delivery of my parcel is at least not outright exploitation, but Amazon (or any other web shop, food delivery service or whatever) do not offer this option, and are thus limiting the consumer power over where to shop based on moral ground.
The poor maintenance, etc, is just evidence of an awful company that doesn’t give a shit. There are many like it.
The driver is the only person effectively held responsible for those defects, so awful motor carriers tend to only attract awful or desperate drivers.
And that's the problem. While we tech workers mostly have the luxury of shopping around employers, sometimes even based on the food in the cafeteria, much of the "lower" levels do not have the free market where both sides are on relatively equal footing.
There's always someone desperate enough to put up even with illegal stuff (e.g. unmaintained vehicles), so if a poor(ish) person has the choice between either doing that job or not being able to make rent...
This should not be "normal". Especially when laws are being violated. It is also a violation of any free market principle if (big) companies can outright ignore laws that everyone else honestly follows. Hard to compete when the other side operates unfairly.
> The driver is the only person effectively held responsible for those defects, so awful motor carriers tend to only attract awful or desperate drivers.
In Europe, for the big rigs also the transportation company owning the truck can and will be held liable. This holds true for both driving times related stuff (e.g. when the police can prove that the travel plan cannot be followed without the driver breaking the law) and vehicle safety (blown tires, overloading, rust, broken brakes, ...). Sadly, small trucks and delivery vans are exempted from lots of the rules :/
You're confusing "doesn't give a shit" with "our margins are too thin to afford any shit". Most of the "sketchy" landscapers, dumpster/trash companies and dirt haulers near you are in the latter camp. Downtime has a massive opportunity cost. Businesses are not running bald tires because they want to but because if their mechanic staff was four people instead of three that would give them no margin and you need a margin to survive.
It’s easy to fall into the trap of feeling bad for these companies. Do not. Putting lives in danger to stay solvent means you cannot afford to be in business and need to go away.
If Amazon.com has compliance problems, it will get fixed. If Joe's Delivery Service has problems, they vanish and Joseph's Delivery Service pops up.
This became apparent when Chinatown busses were at their peak problem -- the "Lucky Dragon Bus Company 43" would replace the "Double Happiness Bus 24" within hours of regulatory action.
Agree with the rest of what you're saying though.
The test isn't going anywhere until there's a reliable field sobriety for weed. Companies don't want employees operating heavy equipment stoned, and unfortunately there's no way to test that somebody smoked in the last day or two, only that they've smoked in the last X weeks/months, depending on their habits.
no non-invasive ones, anyways. :(
blood test does fine for checking whether you're high at the time of draw.
i see this claimed very often by the same people that laud the free market. realize the irony: if ethically sourced good were desired then Amazon would indeed offer this option. in fact they are a luxury good (read: small minority) and so to first approximation you're the only person that wants this.
If there was an option to pick your carrier, with say a list like such:
* USPS * Fedex * UPS * Amazon Logistics * DHL * Living Wages Carrier Inc
I could then direct my money to go towards the companies I favor. That would be a free(er) market, so to speak. There's no irony involved here.
Then again, I'd probably just pick UPS anyway, since Amazon doesn't have delivery drivers that come out this way.
How many customers desire fraudulent, counterfeit products?
As someone who has worked as a delivery driver and is far more familiar with the vehicle inspection program in my state (yes, I know it's different for heavy trucks) than someone who has never worked as an automotive mechanic should be I wholly disagree. Vehicle downtime is enough of a PITA that anyone who can avoid it does, especially in a commercial setting. The regulatory compliance stick adds nothing positive you consider the .gov being able to swoop in find some violation over which they can screw any given operator a positive.
Whatever handheld electronic device is telling the delivery driver where to turn is a far bigger danger to the public than four bald tires. Drivers who are always in a rush and don't have time to do more than the bare minimum strapping down cargo or route planning are also a major source of accidents and near misses. Mechanical failure is a cause of a negligible fraction of accidents. It's really nothing to be worried about from a safety point of view.
Commercial vehicles are a little different I think, since 1) the drivers actually are skilled for the most part (far better than private vehicle drivers at any rate), and 2) they get a lot more use, and so have more maintenance issues. Retread tires, for instance, are a big issue with them, and really should be banned as they are in other countries. They can cause the truck with them to crash, and they can also cause other vehicles to crash by being a road hazard.
I mean, journalism has been a dying career field for at least a decade, author is also 57 and had they been at least aware of the need to eventually retire they should be most of the way to retiring and with even slight motivation should have been able to retire a decade or more ago leanFIRE style. The author failed to see the writing on the wall that their industry was dying, they've failed to think outside the box with their degree as well, like... being a substitute teacher and/or tutor.
"During my 33 years at Sports Illustrated, I wrote six books," Yeahhhhh 33 years at the same employer, 6 books sold and having to hump packages all day...
Then look at how the article ends, approved for a loan. Borrowing more money to make more bad decisions so they can keep churning out articles about how life sucks needing to deliver packages.
The author is wholly clueless and is going to work until the day he dies or he wanted to exercise his creative writing skills and is still holding out hope of salvaging his career as a journalist.
Seriously, I think trying to be a professional writer these days is a terrible career choice. Unless you get lucky with a few best-selling novels or something, you're probably better off driving for Lyft.
I disagree. Average teacher salary here in Indiana is $54,308 (after 'falling', even the really underfunded public grade schools in the inner city here in Indy look like they're paying around 41k) according to https://www.nwitimes.com/news/education/teacher-pay-in-india...
That figure above doesn't include benefits like pensions either. State minimum wage is $7.25, the median household income is $45,943. Teachers are handsomely paid.
A lot of people are quick to say "but teachers work evenings and weekends for free" yes they do, and they also have 2 months off in the summer which likely equals them out to 2080 hours a year (sans vacation time) if not under 2080 hours a year.
As far as subbing, my lifting coach makes makes 30-40$ subbing for a few hours a day between times he has the training facility open. Someone subbing all day makes 60-100$ a day for essentially babysitting. Yeah, it's not full-time delivery driver money but it would have given him plenty of free time to continue to pursue writing freelance, or work on more books, I think the real reason for the working full-time though was so he could take out another home loan, as he needed enough documented income to justify the bank loaning it.
People will say all sorts of things about this; yeah it sucks to not know where and when to pee on the job, but I've had this problem even in office work. It is crappy, but it's not sheer indignity. Yeah, it sucks that they don't want you using weed at home except for a diagnosed medical purpose, but at the same time, it is no great indignity. Rail engineers and conductors here can't drink within 12 hours of a shift, and if they tested for that I don't think it would be insane. You'd be upset if somebody sparked a fat L before going to work, and then injured you while mishandling a forklift; heck, you'd probably sue Amazon (and you'd be right to), so you can surely understand why they want to nip that in the bud, even if their approach seems heavy-handed.
Of course, people here don't like talk like this. I'm not being hyperbolic enough about employment difficulties.
http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/JJWooten/clips/mitch-...
> my wife and I decided to refinance our home.
Hope it was fixed-interest.
Domestic market may be important, but not as huge, and you can't be best at everything. If you lock the domestic market to mostly / only allow local producers, you end up with lower efficiency than the world on average.
Living in a socialist country is not as nice as someone living in the US might be imagining. If Soviet Union is not a good example for you, look at Sweden (it largely stopped its 3-decade socialist experiment in early 1990s).
Um, this doesn't seem right at all. It really depends on the industry/product, and also on the country. The US is probably the largest single market in the world, so it's pretty hard to not do business there and do well as a company, especially if you already do most of your business there. (Obviously, this doesn't apply to local/regional businesses, such as a supermarket chain in Italy or wherever.)
If Toyota was suddenly not allowed to sell in the US, that would be a gigantic blow to their revenues and business. If Ford was in this spot, it would probably be the end of the company. If Trader Joe's couldn't operate in the US any more, that would be the end of them; they can't just pack up and move to China. Amazon can't exactly pack up and move to China and "carry the customers away with them" either; that really makes no sense.
No, protectionism generally doesn't work, but only generally. Lots of countries (all of them?) are protective of some portion of their local industry, usually for national strategic interests. You don't want to tie the very survival of your people to some potentially hostile foreign nation, by relying on them for your food supply, for instance.
He's working for amazon to get a loan so he can refinance his house. I think that's half-true, and I suspect the other half is that he got a job there so he could write this article.
Either way I liked the article - it's a little misleading though.