,
18 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
The thread you didn't know you needed, on job characteristics... there's an extraordinary level of misunderstanding about what various jobs entail, and what criteria matter. People often seem to think the question can be reduced to "what seems like more fun?" 1/18 [sorry!]
A good example is @betseystevenson's recent tweet, "Children--would you rather teach barre, give therapeutic massage, or assemble screens on a line all day?" accompanied by pictures because she apparently thinks how these jobs _look_ buttresses her case. 2/ 
My goal is not to pick on Betsey, she was just making a glib point and I know she thinks much more deeply about the topic. But it's illustrative that she thought this was a _good_ glib point and that she (presumably?) expected labor-econ Twitter to approve. 3/
For starters, the alternative to barre instruction isn't Foxconn in Shenzhen, and continued negative depictions of industrial careers are doing a great deal of damage to how young people perceive pathways available to them. Here's a better photo to use. 4/
But more importantly, economists and policymakers need to have a much more holistic understanding of what matters in a job. For instance, when I refer to manufacturing employment as "stable" I get back, "ha, it's not stable, look at how it has declined!" That's not the point. 5/
It hadn't occurred to me that such a fundamental point needed elaboration, but clearly it does. Manufacturing (and other) jobs are _stable_ in a way personal service jobs aren't because production of things is fundamentally different than provision of an hourly service. 6/
Production and consumption of tradeable things is disaggregated. You don't have to be on call whenever the client finds it convenient. You can work a consistent shift during regular hours, and the customer can buy the thing you make at some other time. 7/
Being able to work a regular schedule (during the time society has set aside for work) affects your quality of life, your family dynamics, your involvement in your community... as compared to working at the inverse times, when other people who enjoy those things want you to. 8/
Something of an aside, but I highly recommend this paper by @cristobalyoung5, "Time as a Network Good." It's a neat framework for thinking about a whole dimension of well-being that economic analysis ignores and markets are not designed to promote. 9/ sociologicalscience.com/time-network-g…
Around here is also the point when someone suggests "well then those service jobs will be paid better to compensate for the inconvenience!" Not if that's what's available. We're talking about the structure of the labor market and investment in the macro economy over time. 10/
Another thing about the production of tradeable things: there's this wonderful feature called "inventory." A firm can provide steady employment in the face of fluctuating short-term demand, and will often have sophisticated planning processes in place to do just that. 11/
By contrast, as a personal service provider, you often have no buffer. Indeed, it's common to be paid per session. No clients today? No hours, no earnings. Some people like that volatility/flexibility. They are rarely parents of young children trying to make ends meet. 12/
This is a great shortcoming of the "gig economy" concept, for all its "efficiency." One of the key things a full-time employer does is provide insurance against swings in demand. Workers "pay" for that insurance (see, e.g., firm profits) but it's a socially valuable bargain. 13/
Here's another question: How do the lifetime earnings trajectories compare for people who start off in manufacturing and in barre-instruction at age 20? Which pathway would you rather be on through your 40s? I haven't seen the data, but I have a hypothesis! 14/
It's easy to overlook such factors when one's own career experience doesn't implicate them (I certainly plead guilty at times to that!), but it's critical that we resist the impulse to think superficially, "which job do I think I'd like?" 15/
"Fun" isn't what work is for, and it's not what most people are looking for in work. A better model is a "Maslow's hierarchy" of things the labor market provides to individuals/families. Fun and self-actualization are unlikely to be primary concerns until the basics are met. 16/
My point isn't "job x is always way better than job y." All jobs have pros/cons. "Production" and "service" are far from homogeneous categories and even within an industry or firm jobs take many forms. Worker power, employer behavior, culture all play roles. Preferences vary. 17/
My point is that between a public that keeps expressing concern about industrial employment and economists whose models say its irrelevant, the public is right. Time spent defending bad theory could better go to understanding what was missed and widening the lens of inquiry. END
