This post arose from, but is now only tangential to, today's Margaret Wente.
No more than six generations ago (and in some cases, far fewer generations than that), every single one of my ancestors was living in poverty - the kind of poverty portrayed in Fiddler on the Roof. They earned a living on farms or perhaps in mines, ceaseless work, starvation a very real possibility. I earn a living in sitting at a computer in air conditioning wearing high heels, and barring some true disaster I'm not going to starve (not because I'm confident in my own perpetual employability, but because there are enough people in the world who are sufficiently personally invested in me that they won't let that happen.)
How we got from my ancestors milking cows in Anatevka to me blogging in Toronto is a very common story. You probably have it in your own family. Free farms, immigration, industrialization, unionization, post-war diaspora and economic boom, education. And the recurring theme throughout this saga in my family, as it probably was in your family, is a better life for the children.
I'll admit I haven't given this much critical thought. It's something I've always blindly accepted - people want a better life for their children. But I think it's generally accepted as a positive value in our society. There's a certain romance about it, it's the sort of thing that's often invoked when trying to sell political platforms. And even if a better life for your children isn't top priority, you'd have to be a real excessive flaming asshole to be actively opposed to it.
In any case, it did work. My ancestors did make a better life for their children. Every generation has had freedoms their parents couldn't imagine (My grandmothers could vote! My parents could plan their family! I can marry a man OR a woman!) and every generation up to my parents' (to soon to tell for mine) has had a significantly better quality of life than their parents did. But, as I blogged about before, the most dramatic change has happened since my grandparents' generation. My grandparents might not have always had shoes; I have a favourite shoe designer. And the reason for this sudden, dramatic improvement within the last few generations is one thing: Good Jobs.
My grandparents' jobs at the plants paid enough that they could support their families and retire with a pension. Hard Work, yes, but they weren't going to starve. Their kids went and worked at the same plants as their summer jobs (apparently this was normal at the time - you could just get your kid a job at the plant), enabling them to earn their university tuition and get white-collar Good Jobs. They supported their children more comfortably (orthodontics, music lessons) and brought us up in a world where living in a safe neighbourhood and going to university after high school is perfectly normal. So we did just that and have been fortunate enough to get Good Jobs ourselves. So far, all our ancestors' hard work and sacrifice has built a better life for us.
But will it last?
As Margaret Wente discusses, these city jobs are Good Jobs. Stability, benefits, pension, a rate of pay where you can breathe. But fewer jobs in general are Good Jobs, because of the economics shifts that happened with the 90s recession. So, as Wente discusses, there are a lot of very loud people who want these jobs to stop being Good Jobs.
But eliminating Good Jobs is completely detrimental to the value of making a better life for one's children. How are people going to raise their children without Good Jobs? How are their children going to support themselves once they're adults? Frankly, I'm feeling this already - and I still have a Good Job! While I do have a few more toys than my parents did at my age, overall my quality of life is never going to exceed theirs, and is very likely to end up lower than theirs. (If I aspired to the same lifestyle as my parents - house, car, children, vacations - I would be certain that my quality of life will always be lower than theirs and I'll have no chance of ever reaching their quality of life. The only reason why my quality of life might ever be in the same league as my parents' is because I aspire to a far less expensive lifestyle.) If they take away the Good Jobs, I'm going to end up worse off than my grandparents were slaving away in the plants. Three generations of hard work (and Hard Work) and sacrifice to build a better life for the children, all down the drain.
Given the amount of anti-labour sentiment and the proportion of parents in the general population, I'd imagine at least some of the anti-labour people are or aspire to be parents. I wonder what kind of career arc they envision for their own children?
9 comments:
"But eliminating Good Jobs is completely detrimental to the value of making a better life for one's children."
It's also detrimental to the economy. Too many people--on the right and the left--confuse economic policy with moral retribution.
This is great. I am going to post it everywhere. Which means on my blog, FB and on a CUPE list.
Excellent post, thank you!
People don't want to simply get rid of these jobs, they only think that the wages and benefits are too high.
Lets be honest; these workers are paid and compensated very well considering the level of education required for these jobs. All people are asking is that they accept something a little more reasonable.
I'm all for good jobs, but there is a difference between good, and lavish; especially when the money for them is coming directly out of the taxpayers' pocket.
I know CUPE members with cottages, 3 nice cars, and lots of money for vacations whenever they like.
Sure it would be great if this is how all jobs were, but we need to stop and realize that the extras like lots of vacations and nice cars and cottages are paid for by the taxpayers.
Just my 2 cents.
e
@ Mithander-
For your information many,many jobs at the City require college diplomas, University Degrees and even post grad degrees, just like the private sector does.
Take a look at the City Website, if you dare, and find out how many job descriptions there really are. Numerous are those that require excellent education creditials AND experience in the field.
You are correct; some do.
My problem isn't with highly skilled workers. They deserve their pay. They have bettered themselves, and have worked hard to get where they are.
My problem is with workers who have no education, and are doing jobs a monkey could do, or a highschooler.
These are the people who need to be paid a more reasonable amount.
Mithander! Glad you're still here, you can help me figure out something I've been trying to figure out for a while:
If you think the city workers' compensation is lavish, why do you, personally, not work for the city?
E.g. I'm not a garbage collector or a parks worker because they'd have to deal with bugs. I'm not a child care or elder care worker because I think their jobs are overworked and underpaid and under-respected.
What are your reasons for not doing or aspiring to do these jobs that you think are over-compensated?
I've been trying to figure this out since the last TTC strike, so I'd really appreciate if you have any insight.
MIthander, I really take issue with your comment that people doing jobs 'a monkey could do' don't deserve the pay they get. I guess it's just a difference of opinion that we won't settle here, but I think that people who work hard at a productive job should get paid well whether they're rocket scientists or sanitation workers. But that's just me. Feel free to consider the people who do jobs you wouldn't do your inferiors.
I'm a little confused, who are you upset with?
Are you upset with the people who happen to be in the union who have money for 3 cars, a cottage, and money for vacation? Isn't that what everyone is striving for? I would hope that I can achieve that one day, I also hope that you can achieve that one day.
Are you upset with union members who don't have a high education level? Or the Highschoolers who happen to be the union? If these were jobs that a monkey could do, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But many of these jobs do require further education, and require constant upgrades in training.
I appreciate your concerns from your point of view, as one of the employers of the members of the union. You want to be able to exercise your right to enjoy the many services that the City normally offers you.
But coming from a union member, who does not work for the City of Toronto, these members are looking out not only for their own rights, but for their children. In their opinion, if the City were to take something away now, the next time it would snowball into further concessions in the future. The union is trying to keep these jobs as good jobs, so that good workers looking for good jobs in the future, whether it be my children, your children, or for that matter anyone, would look to a career in the public service as a viable option.
Post a Comment