Would You Work for No Pay If It Was Something You Enjoyed?

[TheStatutoryApe]

One advantage of a whateverist society we're talking about, is that jobs could get shuffled. Can you imagine if we were already that society, discussing a *specialised* society in which you have to do the same job 40 hours a week for years on end? i expect we'd have a number of posters who thought such a set up was completely insane. (Yet that's the kind of society we have at present.)

But it's not the kind of society we have a present. I've worked in about four or five different sorts of jobs. I'm trying to get my self together so I can move on to yet another sort of job right now. In our society you can get just about what ever sort of job you want as long as you have the skill and the merit.

 

[Moonbear]

One advantage of a whateverist society we're talking about, is that jobs could get shuffled.

The problem is that some jobs take considerable training to do. If you could just up and quit and do something else when you got bored of it, and had to wait while someone else learned the ropes, things could get pretty inefficient. Of course we all are capable of cleaning vomit, but would you actually volunteer to clean up other people's vomit if you could choose anything else instead?

It certainly isn't part of our evolution to never vary what we're doing. We're generalists by nature.

Can you back up that statement? I was under the impression that throughout human history, people have had fairly fixed roles in societies, whether self-selected or society-imposed. If someone is proficient at hunting, they hunt. It wouldn't make sense to send them out to pick berries if someone else has gotten proficient at selecting the non-poisonous berries and the former hunter wouldn't know those nightshade berries aren't edible, or which mushrooms are safe and which aren't, etc. We're a social species, not a solitary species, and it seems usually social species have roles in order to function in a social system rather than being entirely self-sufficient, in which case it would make more sense to be solitary.

 

[pattylou]

But it's not the kind of society we have a present. I've worked in about four or five different sorts of jobs. I'm trying to get my self together so I can move on to yet another sort of job right now. In our society you can get just about what ever sort of job you want as long as you have the skill and the merit.

I wonder how widely applicable your situation is.

I'm limited to teaching and research by and large. I am not complaining, but it's interesting to consider being valued as a seamstress, as a farmer, as a cook, as a teacher, then back again to seamstress.

I'd be willing to tuck in a coal mining stint every few years if it was necessary.

But I wouldn't want to have mine coal all the time, as things have been in our country's recent past.

 

[pattylou]

Can you back up that statement? I was under the impression that throughout human history, people have had fairly fixed roles in societies, whether self-selected or society-imposed. If someone is proficient at hunting, they hunt. It wouldn't make sense to send them out to pick berries if someone else has gotten proficient at selecting the non-poisonous berries and the former hunter wouldn't know those nightshade berries aren't edible, or which mushrooms are safe and which aren't, etc. We're a social species, not a solitary species, and it seems usually social species have roles in order to function in a social system rather than being entirely self-sufficient, in which case it would make more sense to be solitary.

I'm thinking in general terms of the basic skills of survival being known by most members of the species. Look at apes. Any ape knows how to get food, knows some tool use, knows communication, etc -

Skills needed for basic survival are inherent in individuals. Interestingly, the related needs/provisions ... form the basis of society as well.

We are capable of specialisation, no question. Whether a person becomes trained in identifying poisonous plants or recognizing dangerous weather signals, (Pulling something off the top of my head here) has less to do with their innate capabilities and more to do with their training.

So our innate capabilities, I'd argue, are more geared towards a general skill set. Through training we become specialised.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I wonder how widely applicable your situation is.
I'm limited to teaching and research by and large. I am not complaining, but it's interesting to consider being valued as a seamstress, as a farmer, as a cook, as a teacher, then back again to seamstress.
I'd be willing to tuck in a coal mining stint every few years if it was necessary.
But I wouldn't want to have mine coal all the time, as things have been in our country's recent past.

I'm sure there are probably more people who let themselves get stuck into a cubby hole but I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people here on PF whom have worked various sorts of jobs. I'm pretty Positive that LYN has and I'd venture to say that Danger and Astronuc would be among them aswell.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm sure also that you could do things other than teaching if you really wanted to. You could even teach seamtressing if you wanted to, sticking within your current field but getting into other things at the same time.

It's definitely true though that to have a stable job and advance in it you need to stick with it for a time. Having a family makes that a bit more important that it might be otherwise.

 

[pattylou]

I think it's also true that in general the expectation in our society is that you will do the same thing for a long time (more efficient after all). People who float about from job to job are seen as mavericks or sometimes seen as people who "can't hold a job" or... are simply not the norm generally speaking.

 

[pi-r8]

I'm sure most people end up switching jobs or even careers at some point in their lives. But why would you want to constantly switch? Wouldn't you rather just find something you like, that you're good at, and stick with it?

 

[loseyourname]

I think it's also true that in general the expectation in our society is that you will do the same thing for a long time (more efficient after all). People who float about from job to job are seen as mavericks or sometimes seen as people who "can't hold a job" or... are simply not the norm generally speaking.

How old are you? It's becoming increasingly the norm that people change careers several times, or at least change employers.

 

[Smurf]

How old are you? It's becoming increasingly the norm that people change careers several times, or at least change employers.

which only goes to show that people might (just maybe) be able to learn more than one skill in a lifetime.

 

[pattylou]

The topic seems to keep straying. I'm pretty much done with the thread personally, so don't feel offended if I bow out at this point -- and thanks everyone!

LYN: I expect we aren't really espousing different views on career changes. Starting up a discussion on it seems to me like an invitation to another round of hairsplitting, and I have a bowl of popcorn waiting for me in the other room. Let me know if you really want me to get back to you on this.

 

[loseyourname]

You don't really have to tell me how old you are, if that's what you mean. I'm just saying that not remaining in a single career for an entire lifetime is a rising trend amongst the younger generations in particular. If you're older, you probably haven't experienced it so much.