In the middle of this post I made the rather trite observation that the most desirable jobs are in the service sector:
Service-sector jobs are the most desirable. Until his retirement, my dad had a manufacturing job: he worked as a welder in a shipyard. Like most parents, his dream was for his children to become doctors or lawyers and the like — that is, he longed for his children to work in the service sector. Ever hear a parent say “I want my boy to grow up to be a pipe-fitter!” or “My dream is for little Suzy one day to operate her very own sewing machine in a clothing factory!”?
Responding to this paragraph, Bill Waddell (in the comments section) mistakes my meaning when he says:
As a matter of fact, there are quite a few people who would be proud to see their sons grow up to be pipefitters. Machinists, welders and electricians too. They would be proud to see their son not only become a pipefitter, but to own his own truck and be an independent pipefitting contractor. Same with Suzie and her sewing machine. They would like Suzie to become so good that she someday owns a couple of sewing machines and has a small sewing business. It is decent, honorable work, despite your pompous drivel.
I can only wonder how full of his own superiority a man must be to flush a toilet a time or two, take a shower and have a drink of water, then sit down to write clever throw away lines insulting the people whose pride in their chosen line of work made that possible. You cannot possibly fathom the fact that the pipefitters who make your life comfortable would be ashamed to have their kids grow up to be academic snobs.
Let me be clear. I never said — and I never believed — that my father would have not been proud of me had I become a pipefitter or a welder or a garbage man rather than a college professor. Nor did I say — and nor do I believe — that such jobs are contemptible or shameful.
A parent’s love and respect, and a person’s worth, are determined by far, far more than employment and income.
Likewise, the attractiveness of a job is determined by far more than the salary it pays or the social status that it affords.
No serious person doubts the truth of these points. Nor does any serious person question the fact that nearly everything that any of us does in modern society is made possible by the creativity and labor of countless people — some paid highly and holding prestigious jobs; many others paid modestly or even very little and holding jobs that bring their holders no status recognition. And of course I understand that the house that my family and I live in could never have been built, and would not today operate, without the labor of plumbers, electricians, carpenters, operators of earth-moving equipment, and on and on and on. I challenge anyone to find anything in any of my writings that can fairly be interpreted as an insult to such workers.
My point was the (again) quite trivial one that the careers that most people aspire to — and the careers that most parents hope that their children will enter — are not jobs in the construction industry or in the manufacturing sector. They are, instead, jobs in the service sector — jobs such as physician, lawyer, accountant, architect.
Like most folks, I understand why most people aspire to such jobs rather than to jobs in a shipyard or in an assembly plant. (From 1975 through 1981, I worked each summer in a shipyard. It’s unpleasant, difficult, dirty, and dangerous work that doesn’t pay particularly well by modern American standards.) Perhaps those parents (such as mine) who would prefer that their children become physicians or lawyers or accountants or even college professors (rather than become manual laborers) are crass, shallow, and ungrateful materialists. But I venture to suggest that such parents outnumber those who would prefer that their children work in an assembly plant rather than become white-collar professionals.
So whether or not I’m a snob — whether I’m coldly insensitive or not to the workers who keep my toilets flushing and my automobile in one piece — the fact remains that the jobs that most people want, and that most parents want for their children, are jobs in the mindlessly derided service sector.
Share
{ 12 comments }
Don,
My Mom always said (And, YES, she was usually right) that she didn't care what work we undertook when we grew up – all she wanted was honest, hardworking, happy and healthy children. She didn't care if we were CEO's or crane operators – just as long as we did a fair day's work. Of course, she was hopelessly old fashioned, and I'm thankful for it.
There's a place for every job that needs to be done and none of them are beneath contempt. I certainly didn't think you were casting aspersions. But then again, I'm old fashioned, too, and don't always read the negative into everything someone says.
That CEO job might be a great one, get paid a lot and have lots of prestige, but he'd be peeing in the parking lot without that pipefitter, so no one, no matter how self important they are, should take all of it too seriously. Fortunes, after all, shift with the winds. CEO today, beggar tomorrow.
I do get the impression that many who complain about the loss of manufacturing jobs have never worked one.
Actually I think Bill supported your point quite well. I would classify "own his own truck and be an independent pipefitting contractor" and "a small sewing business" as service service-sector jobs, not manufacturing jobs.
Woe to he who turns a witty phrase. Little Sally and the pipe-fitter hammer home a simple point: some jobs are more prestigious than others. Some jobs pay more, some are safer, some are more prestigious. So what? I venture that the pipe-fitter prefers his current mix of compensation and would be loathe to trade wages for prestige if given the opportunity. Similarly, since positions in academe afford higher prestige, Sally will probably pay less for education than she would if academics were reviled. (Perhaps if we stop ridiculing lawyers and economics we can increase the supply and reduce their wage.) In any case, to impute a normative comparison or contempt for certain vocations, it seems to me, is to misread the original post. Thanks, Dr. Boudreaux, for another vivid example.
Don is surely correct on average, however there are many "manual" jobs that must surely be much more enjoyable than many "desk" jobs. Everything gets tedious once you've done it a few times, lucky are the few whose job does not involve doing the same thing many times over.
I'm sure I speak for many when I say that I would rather be a builder (skilled, not labourer) or a van driver than a bank clerk (given equal pay).
Comparing a lawyer/academic/doctor to a pipefitter is perhaps a bit fatuous. The approriate comparison would be with the construction/structural/mechanical engineer etc, whereupon the original assertion that service jobs are nicer needs to reasserted as "high end service jobs are nicer than ordinary non service sector jobs", but that's about the same as saying that nice jobs are nicer than not nice jobs.
There's nothing innately nice about working in an office, though there is something innately awful about harsh toil, but toil can be found in offices as well as in fields and factories.
Without the benefit of evidence I confidently assert that how "nice" a job is will be intimately connected with educational requirements for the job. Also, it will be noted that living in a community/country for a long time (especially generations) affects one's chance of getting a "nice" job.
I am thinking of a number of truck drivers, ranch hands, etc., that I know and realize that there are other considerations than just pay and benefits. Truckers, for example, like being their own boss, the barriers to entry are low, you get to travel, every day is different, etc. But I agree with Don about the service sector: they aren't all McJobs, despite the constant attempts by people (usually writers, academics, and other service providers) to paint them that way.
I offer my deepest apologies to Mr.Boudreaux for personalizing my comments. I obviously know nothing of what is in his heart and soul. At best, I know a little bit of him intellectually from his writing. My comment went beyond the intellectual line into a personal realm in which I had no business operating. I also want to acknowledge my respect for Mr. Boudreaux for how he responded to my comment. You have all read the post above. He also sent me a personal email. Many people would have read a comment such as mine and responded with a rousing "F**K You, Bill" and left it at that, with no little justification.
To a large degree, the frustration in my comment stemmed from the extremism and polarization that I sense is taking place concerning the American economy.
Whether it is one group professing that offshore outsourcing of manufacturing will be the ruin of American civilization as we have come to know and love it; or the other side saying get rid of it all so we can become an even more bountiful land of knowledge workers; the noise is not helpful.
I bristled at Don's comparison of Susie working in a sewing factory to doctors and lawyers. In fact, I bristle at just about everyone whose case for economic policy includes terms such as "Service sector jobs" and "manufacturing jobs", which are so overly broad as to be meaningless terms.
Do I want my child to work in manufacturing or service? If the manufacturing job is a unkilled sewing job in an oppressive, hot noisy place, and the service sector job is to be a doctor, then the answer is obvious.
However, if the manufacturnng job is to be the supply chain director for Toyota and the service job is to work in the back end of a pizza joint, the answer is equally obvious.
A person with no skills and little education faces a tough existence in either manufacturing or service. The person with a solid education and a good work ethic can live a great life in either manufacturing or service. It would not be all bad to see junior grow up to be one of those execs who gets trashed in the press for exhorbitant, obscene executive pay.
There is no such thing as a 'manufacturing job'. The traditional heavy industry jobs with all of their heat, smoke and noise; and the unskilled assembly line jobs represent a pretty tough way to make a living. Running a surface mount machine in a clean room is not a bad way to make a living at all.
Whether it is manufacturing or service, most people, supported by most parents and schools, understand that training, education and experience byond high school makes all the difference in the world.
It is a whole lot better to be a machinist, or a quality technician than it is to be an unskilled laborer in any factory. Likewise, being the X Ray technician in the hospital has being the guy who pushes beds back and forth to X Ray beat hands down.
The debate over the proper place of manufacturing in our national economic scheme is one thing – and a very important thing. The problem is the pain in getting to that point – if we want to get to that point, at all.
The machinist or quality technician who loses his job when the plant shuts down and moves to China does not laterally move into the X Ray technicians job. In the service sector, he is pretty much at the bottom of the heap. Perhaps in a generation or two his children may have made the adjustment and aimed for the service sector technician job from the get go, but until then, dear old dad and the rest of the family are feeling some pain.
Ignoring this, or citing faulty statistics or overly broad logic does not help. Suggesting that the laid off workers at Whirlpool all become doctors and lawyers is not particularly helpful advice. Suggesting that the problems faced by the 3 million or so former manufacturing workers do not exist simply generates backlash and undermines credibility.
Stopping the transition of manufacturing to offshore locations through across the board tarrifs and protectionist policies is no solution to finding America's proper role in the world economy in the future. Ignoring the pain and upheaval that such a transition – especially without honestly and openly gaining the consensus of the American people that such a transition is wise and necessary – is not smart either.
Bill Waddell,
I disagree with what I think is a fundamental issue implied in these passages:
"no solution to finding America's proper role in the world economy in the future."
"without honestly and openly gaining the consensus of the American people that such a transition is wise and necessary "
These seem to imply that some large organization – either government or an industry planning group – needs to determine the global location and type of jobs offered.
Please correct me and confirm that you do not favor central planning. Please show me that you believe corporations and not government have the right to deploy their assets as they see fit.
By no means do I favor any sort of central planning. I am merely suggesting that, given the way our democracy works, if the people do not understand and support the transitional pain that must accompany a shift to a decrease in manufacturing jobs, they will reject those in favor of free trade in the next election.
My real concern is that there are 3 million and growing people, X 2 for spouses, who are without their former manufacturing jobs and without the skills to earn wages in the service sector comparable to what they were making. So long as the current administration continues to promote free trade, but denies the existence of a problem, there will be serious discontent. If the current ostrich mode continues – GDP is good, Productivity is zooming, the impact of outsourcing is minimal and healthy, there is no problem – the approval rating of Republicans will continue to plummet.
If things continue I would not be the least bit surprised to see the next President elected on a platform built around a promise to severely restrict trade, especially with China.
Free trade advocates need to get honest data out in front of the people, explain the benefit of the transition, acknowledge the negative impact it will have on some people (enough to swing any election, by the way) and gain the support from middle America.
There is a growing and strong conviction within the manufacturing communities of Middle America that the beneficiaries of free trade are all on Wall Street, and that the loss of manufacturing jobs can be attributed entirely to the greed of the wealthy few.
When told by Bush that the economy is fine and the outsourcing of manufacturing creates jobs and everyone will have an even better standard of living, the reaction in the red states is increasingly, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."
Whether that view is right or wrong is not the issue. This is still a democracy and the majority still rules – kind of, anyway.
Bill Waddell: "My real concern is that there are 3 million and growing people, X 2 for spouses, who are without their former manufacturing jobs and without the skills to earn wages in the service sector comparable to what they were making."
Do you have any data to support this? How can you know that 6 million people do not possess the skills to earn comparable wages? Do you know how many former manufacturing workers do possess the required skills but refuse to move to available jobs? How many of these 6 million former manufacturing workers have retired?
Why is it 6 million in the first place if only 3.5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost? Why are you assuming that spouses have lost their jobs as well? Sorry, Bill, but your numbers seem to change from one week to the next – from 14 million to 3.5 million to 6 million – and I have trouble keeping up.
I corrected the 14 million to 3 previously.
So your theory stands unless someone can prove to you that a laid off machinist is probably married and can't qualify for an X-Ray tech job?
Keep your head buried in the sand and watch what happens to US tade policy after 2008
The desirable service sector jobs you mention (physicians, lawyers, etc.) are desirable largely because they pay well and confer status.
Comparing them to manual jobs in manufacturing is the wrong comparison – manual jobs in manufacturing would be better comapred to manual jobs in the service sector.
The equivalent jobs in manufacturing are those of professional engineer, scientist, etc. but these generally confer less status, pay and job security. Why? Because these are jobs subject to international competition. They therefore cannot be closed shops and operate restrictive practices like doctors and lawyers and cannot offer wages which are inflated by international standards without a corresponding increase in productivity.