Hello again guys, I'm taking a brief break from my travel stories from Portugal season to answer a good question from my reader Amanda - she said recently that she had never ever considered a job in finance before, because she thought it would be a dry job which involved doing the same tasks over and over again, which would just drive her insane. So, today we shall explore if this can be a fair evaluation of a job in finance? Well, in today's post, I shall try to answer that question by looking at some friends' experiences, address the wider issue of boredom vs fun when it comes to our work, dealing with stress at work, having a conducive work environment and also discuss at the wider issue of job satisfaction.
Q: Are jobs in finance boring, like being stuck in an office all day doing repetitive tasks?
A: It varies actually - there are some jobs which are extremely boring and others which are far more exciting. I have a good friend Dave (not his real name) who once worked in a mortgage division of a Swedish bank and all he did everyday was process mortgage applications. Even by his own admission, he was so totally bored out of his brains and he took that job because he was keen to start working in banking as soon as he graduated. If you get stuck in a role like that, if you're just a very small cog in a massive machine, then of course you're probably going to be very bored in a job like that. So how do you avoid a situation like that? Firstly, read the job description carefully - some companies are hiring for very boring jobs and there are plenty of people who are not put off by the repetitive nature of the job. It is a double-edged sword: doing the same task again and again, day after day may cause boredom but on the other hand, it also means that you can just walk into the office everyday knowing exactly what to expect and have the knowledge that you can do all of those tasks with ease and both your eyes closed. Dave is still working within financial services today but he has changed jobs twice since and is now in a role which is far more demanding and challenging; he has far more responsibilities in his current role and I am pleased to report that he is much happier now. So was Dave's job at the mortgage division of that Swedish bank a really terrible job? No, not really - oh there are plenty of people who would give an arm and a leg for a job like that - thus the only problem was that it wasn't a good fit for Dave but it might be the perfect job for someone else.
Q: What is the funnest thing you've done whilst working in banking?
A: I work in sales and I love attending events: before the pandemic, there were loads of events in my industry and these events are designed for networking in mind. I love turning up at an event and working the room, never quite knowing who the next person you're going to speak to will be. There are plenty of events in London but I have also traveled to events internationally, one of the best experiences I've had was in Barcelona in 2018 - firstly, it was a brilliant place to have an event as Barcelona is one of the world's top travel destinations. The catering at the event was excellent (especially since I totally love Spanish cuisine) and all the sponsors were trying very hard to outdo each other by throwing really amazing parties on the beach. I got to meet loads of interesting people at the event from all over the world and of course, I got to use my many languages to communicate with them. So yes, I was paid to attend all of these parties in Barcelona and it doesn't get more fun than that! After the event, I also had some free time to explore the city on my own so I did loads of sightseeing and shopping. I was also put up in a lovely boutique hotel with a nice rooftop pool, so if I ever got too tired of going to all those parties, then I could retreat to the hotel and just relax by the pool. I remember sending photos from Barcelona to my colleagues who were stuck in the office working whilst I was having so much fun - the fact is people who work in the back office rarely get called to attend such events as it is always those in sales and marketing who get to go to such events. So yes, I remember sipping a non-alcoholic cocktail and eating tapas on the beach at Barceloneta thinking, "this is really incredible, I am getting paid good money to do this? Now that's a pretty fine way to make a living."
Q: Yes but you're describing one fun event, this doesn't happen everyday, does it?
A: Fair point and I want to talk about the fun ratio here. You can measure this over the course of one typical working day or in my case, the ratio of fun days when I am partying on company expenses in Barcelona vs the days I am stuck at my desk doing paperwork. Before the pandemic, I would say that the ratio of fun vs mundane days was about 1:4, which meant that for about 20% of the time, I was having a lot of fun and for 80% of the time, I was stuck at my desk. It doesn't mean that I was miserable for 80% of the time, it's just that during that time, the fun activities I do tend to come after work - like if I choose to go to the gym for my gymnastics training or if I go hang out with my friends. But even if I were to look at the really fun jobs I have done, that ratio is never 100% fun all the time. In 2017, I had a part in a German film and I spent time in Germany filming just outside Berlin. Whilst that sounds fun and glamorous, I really only enjoyed myself when I stepped on set and the director yelled, "action!" That was when I knew everyone on set was watching me and it was show time - oh I loved being the center of attention. But that was like also 20% of the time at best - the other 80% of the time was spent on far more boring and mundane stuff. There was a lot of time spent on travel: I had to fly to Berlin, then get driven out to Potsdam and there was a lot of waiting around. I then spend ages in make up and costume, where the producers make me try on different outfits for the character and of course, I wasn't the only actor on set. Sometimes I would have to wait quite a while for the make up artist or the costume designer to be available - that wasn't exactly fun. And then there were the early starts, sometimes I would wake up at like 6 am, just to be in make up and wardrobe by 7 am because they want to start shooting at 8:30 am sharp. Thus even a very 'fun' job can have a lot of tedious moments.
A: These experiences have shown me that it is unrealistic to search for a job that is 100% fun all the time - that just doesn't happen. A better way to measure this is how stressed you are - picture this: I am sitting around at a film studio in Germany waiting ages for the costume designer to see me. I am told she is busy and to be patient, I may be bored but it's not like I'm stressed. Nobody is yelling at me to get work done, I'm either on my phone or chatting to the other members of the cast and crew. There's always plenty to eat and drink as they usually keep us very well fed on set and there was always a sofa for me to lie down on and have a nap. I may have been bored whilst waiting but was I stressed? No, far from it - in fact, I was so relaxed I had many naps on that rather comfortable sofa in the film studio. Likewise, during the 80% of the time when I was desk bound, I wasn't stressed. I may have been bored with the paperwork but I wasn't stressed either. Compare this to the situation I witnessed recently at Porto airport in Portugal - due to the new requirements for travel during the pandemic, there were very long queues at the check-in desk at at airport. The ground staff had to check that the passengers had fulfilled all the Covid-19 testing requirements before allowing them to board the plane and thus there were massive delays; some passengers got impatient and started yelling at the staff who were not to blame for the situation. It was a very stressful situation for the airline staff having to deal with so many angry passengers who had been waiting hours to check-in and the staff at the airport were probably longing for those days of the lockdown when there were very few passengers to serve and little to do, boredom is a luxury for them!
Q: What can we do to deal with boredom at work?
A: There are different kinds of boredom - let's compare my situation at the German film studio with Dave at the Swedish bank. At the German film studio, I was bored but not stressed. I was waiting around a lot but there wasn't a lot to do whilst I waited. Dave on the other hand, didn't have a moment to spare - he had a never-ending pile of mortgage applications to process. Thus Dave was bored and very busy at the same time. It was the very repetitive nature of the job that caused Dave's boredom, that situation is very different compared to me lying on that sofa in Germany for hours with nothing to do. So Dave's situation is far more likely to be a stressful one compared to mine in Germany because we then have to explore other factors that contribute to stress such as one's workload and what we are expected to produce at work. Let's contrast Dave's situation to another friend Anita - she works in a small pharmacy and admittedly, her work routine there is can be quite repetitive. However, Anita likes working there because her colleagues there are really nice, she gets along very well with her team at the pharmacy and even if they are doing a rather boring, repetitive task (such as doing a stock check), she can always have a chat with her colleagues to past the time and that way, she doesn't feel bored. Thanks to her nice colleagues, she has a very conducive working environment at the pharmacy and she is happy working there. However, Anita's tasks are simple enough for her to chat to her colleagues and still complete at the same time - Dave didn't have that luxury at the Swedish bank, he needed to focus and concentrate on the tedious mortgage application forms. So as we can see from the case of Anita, there is actually quite a lot we can do to mitigate the effects of boredom at work, so that it no longer becomes a major issue, but of course, some people just do not have that luxury.
Q: Is there some kind of compromise we can reach?
A: I think so - let's look at one of my friends Lydia (not her real name). She is an accountant and admittedly, her work is neither exciting nor fun: it can be tedious and boring at times by her own admission. However, she is very well paid and that means she is able to provide for her family. Lydia had a difficult childhood and she wanted to make sure she gave her children the childhood she never had, so her priority is to make sure she earns enough money to achieve that and thus she doesn't ever complain about the boring nature of her job - she is just happy to have something that she can excel at and be handsomely paid for it. Her idea of fun is going on holiday with her family and spending quality time with her kids on the beach - she simply doesn't associate 'having fun' with work. And then there's a case of my American friend Mike (not his real name), he used to work in retail in New York and thought, nah that's no fun, I'm so freaking bored. So he thought he would follow a childhood dream - he got himself a contract to work at Disney World Resorts in Florida where he thought it would be like being on vacation all the time. The reality of working at Disney shocked Mike: Florida isn't a cheap place to live and the wages at Disney are so low for the vast majority of their employers. that they are struggling to pay the rent and buy food. Mike thought the job would be fun and to be fair, there were some elements of the job that he did enjoy but overall, these were totally overshadowed by his problems with housing and money - Mike thought he was working in the 'happiest place on earth' but that happiness was really reserved for the tourists who were spending a lot of money to enjoy themselves there and not the staff. So was Mike thoroughly unrealistic in his expectations in sharp contrast to Lydia then, is there something that Mike can learn from Lydia about the art of comprise?
Q: Are there people who actually have fun jobs which are fun most of the time?
A: This would vary person to person and it depends on your definition of fun. Different people enjoy different things: allow me to use an example from the rural Irish countryside. My late mother-in-law used to live very near a horse riding school, her house was on the same road as the local equestrian center and one could frequently see people riding horses on that road. I met one of the young men who worked there - let's call him Jeff (not his real name) and he was kind enough to take me on a tour of the equestrian school to show me the horses. I could tell that Jeff was truly passionate about the horses, he told me that he had grown up on a farm and had been around horses since he was a child. Now it is evident that Jeff enjoys working at the equestrian center because of his love of horses and thus that job for him is truly fun even if admittedly, the pay is not very good and the work he does can be repetitive - after all, his job is primarily to take care of the horses and that routine is very similar everyday. Now imagine if I took that job: I would actually be very bored for a simple reason. I simply don't share Jeff's love for horses, it's just not something that has been a part of my life and it's not like I hate horses, I just don't think that working with horses every single day will be fun. Is Jeff in an ideal position? Well, not really - he doesn't earn that much in that job but at least for him, property is very cheap in the Irish countryside because of the low population density, so he can have a very simple life there. If he is entirely happy and content with that and he doesn't crave the expensive things that you need a lot of money for (such as exotic holidays in beautiful places halfway across the world) and to his credit Jeff has managed to find a reasonably good compromise on that front.
A: Ah, let's talk about job satisfaction: in terms of job satisfaction, I think it would be hard to rank them accurately so I will create this scale from 1 to 5, with 1 = totally miserable, 2 = unhappy but able to put up with the situation, 3 = pretty okay with the situation but it isn't perfect, 4 = very happy and content with the situation and 5 = the ultimate dream come true.
1. American Mike at Disney World
2. Dave (whilst at the Swedish bank), Airport staff at Porto airport
3. Me working in finance, Dave today (in a better job)
4. Anita at the pharmacy, Lydia in accounts, Jeff at the Equestrian center
5. Me working in Germany on that film
You may ask me at this stage, if filming in Germany was so fantastic, then why aren't you doing that full time then? Why yes, I would love to do that full time given how well I was treated in Germany, but I'm not a famous actor who is always in demand in Germany, so unfortunately now, I have to settle for what I can get in the field of finance and all things considered, I'm happy enough. Jobs that offer level 5 perfection when it comes to job satisfaction are very hard to come by. It is a choice that we must make: so do you spend the rest of you life holding out for the perfect job or do you get on with building your career with what you can do now? How can we find the right compromise to make sure we are happy?
Q: So what lessons can we learn from this discussion?
A: Rather than focus on just one factor like 'boredom', we need to look at the wider picture and consider a range of different factors when it comes to job satisfaction. Now firstly, we need to consider how much we are paid - Mike may have had a seemingly fun job as an entertainer in Disney World but given that he was paid so little there, it severely impacted the quality of his life when it came to basic things like paying the rent. Lydia on the other hand may not have a fun job, but at least she earns plenty of money to enable to spend on the things she does enjoy with her family. The second factor to consider is how well you get along with the people you work with - in the case of Anita, she does not have a well-paid or fun job, but nonetheless, she enjoys her job because of the lovely people she works with. By the same token, the staff I encountered at Porto airport have a very stressful time at work when they have to deal with unreasonable and demanding passengers. Furthermore, if you can find a job that revolves around something you are passionate about as in the case of Jeff in Ireland, then that would bring you a lot of job satisfaction, even if other aspects of the job are less than perfect. Indeed, in the case of Dave, when he was at the Swedish bank, it was hard for him to get passionate or excited about processing mortgage applications all day at work. A final factor that one has to consider is working hours: Anita leaves the pharmacy the moment she finishes her shift but when Dave was working at the Swedish bank, he was expected to stay in the office for as long as it takes until the work is done as they had strict targets to meet. So, your overall job satisfaction would be the combination of all of these factors along with your personal objectives too.
In conclusion, different people have different priorities: so for Lydia for example, it would be to make as much money as possible to support her family whilst for Jeff, it would be to work with horses (not any other animals but specifically with horses). But for most of us, I think we're probably quite realistic: I don't expect to have a fun job where I am treated like a VIP whilst being paid a lot of money (well, that was exactly what I had when working in Germany actually); but otherwise I'm happy enough to make the best of the opportunities that I do have before me by working in the financial services industry. And of course, I accept that there may be some elements of boredom in my job but it's not something I fear as much as stress - really, it is the lesser of two evils. Comparing boredom to stress is like comparing being bitten by a mosquito and being bitten by a shark - like seriously, I can understand if Amanda said, "I don't want a stressful job"; because work related stress can be seriously detrimental to your health in so many ways (just think about the poor staff at Porto airport), but I think the only reason why you should reject a boring job is if you were like Dave at the Swedish bank - he did think, "I am so intelligent and talented, I am capable of so much more but I am just not growing in this role at this bank, this job isn't right for me - I need to move to a company where I have better career prospects, where I will learn and grow a lot more." Yeah if you put it like that, then of course it is a very valid reason to look for a better job but if you are looking for a 'fun job' the way Mike did, I think you are only going to end up quite disappointed when reality bites.
So that's it from me on the topic of boring jobs, what do you think? Am I being too harsh on people who simply don't want to have a boring job or is there a realistic compromise to be struck given that there's always going to some boring elements to even the best jobs? Can you relate to any of the people I have talked about in this piece like Dave, Lydia, Anita, Mike and Jeff? How do you feel about the balance between boredom and stress in the workplace? Are you bored at your job and how often do you genuinely have fun at work? Please leave a comment below, many thanks for reading.
Y'know this post made me think that if a job is boring, it might be the first thing that gets automated, but that is another story. The topic of dreamjobs is very interesting though. These jobs exist, but because they are so awesome there is extreme competition and companies can demands a lot in terms of performance. As a highly paid actor you have to put in such a great performance that the movie will make more than a billion dollars. And even if you do perform well the movie might not because of other factors (lack of marketing, director bad, costumes bad, script bad, etc.) The alternative if one doesn't want to perform well is either to pick a niche job, or a job so miserable there is so little competition one can demand higher pay than usual(e.g crab fishing).
ReplyDeleteIn my case I'm trying to find the exciting jobs in finance where I get to use my math/coding skills a lot. In some ways this doesn't have too high competition, because it automatically excludes many popular majors like psychology/sociology/English. But because it pays a lot, among the science/engineering majors there is lots of competition, and the hedge fund can demand a lot back. However, to not stress out their employees they also have to add some "fun" into it. I saw this job posting on LinkedIn where at the end it was written:
"While we are serious about our work at X company, we also promote a fun startup environment!
You can expect:
Ping pong and poker games
Fun team outings
Unlimited office snacks
Free breakfast, lunch, and dinner"
But of course they demand each worker makes them at least 6 figures in just 12 weeks! That's not something that Mike at Disney World is asked to do, which is why they can get away with paying him much less and giving less perks.
Ah but Amanda, there are two sides to the same coin. A job can be boring if the tasks are repetitive and you do the same thing over and over and over again, day after day. That kind of job would be attractive to someone like my mother who would think, "great, I can go into work everyday without ever being asked to learn anything new or different, I know exactly what I am doing, I will feel confident that I am capable of doing what's expected of me and I am spared the stress of having to some complex problems that I have never encountered before." So you have to bear in mind everyone has a different mindset when it comes to this issue: clearly Dave is a lot more intelligent and isn't a good fit for that kind of role, but there are also people like my mother who would gladly do a boring job as she would feel safe & secure in that kind of role. Not everyone is as intelligent or ambitious like Dave.
DeleteA good example of a well paid job that has little competition is in mining - in Australia, mining jobs are very well paid as they are often in the desert, you face horrifically hot conditions, living thousands of miles from civilization working under very harsh conditions in the desert. To attract engineers to work in the mines, they offer them very good salaries and use money as the motivator to get people to do such jobs - it works. There are plenty of people out there with families to support and would gladly do a job like that just for the good money.
I hate to be a wet blanket but math/coding skills do NOT lead to fun/exciting jobs in finance. You're the one who's going to be stuck in the office all day coding, someone will give you a problem to solve ("We want our clients to be able to do this function through an app, make it happen.") Your job satisfaction would then come from the glee you get when you do solve the problems and deliver them the solution they want - that's a different kind of fun and validation, compared to when I was sipping cocktails at the party on a beach in Barcelona. It's a different kind of fun but like I said in the post, job satisfaction can come in many different forms and not just the stereotypical 'fun' as we imagine. We need to focus on job satisfaction rather than excitement or fun per se.
As for why Mike is paid peanuts at Disney World, well it's a supply & demand issue - they don't need to raise the salary as there are thousands of people lining up to apply for the jobs at Disney World. So if Mike resigns today, he will be replaced by tomorrow morning just like that - no problem, no fuss, he won't be missed. Contrast that to if Mike was working in a mine in the middle of the Australian outback - the heat of the desert summer gets too much and he quits, but there's no way they can replace him in the short run without finding someone to train, so he would then be in a better position to negotiate more pay, better working conditions etc. The only way I have seen someone enjoy working at Disney was this rich kid with super wealthy parents, she has always had a fascination with Disney so she participated in a work experience programme there and she wasn't thinking about money as her parents give her more money than she can spend. So yeah, if money isn't an issue and you're into all that Disney stuff, then it can be fun. But not everyone has super rich parents - Mike certainly doesn't, that's why he's in that terrible position in life, much like my friend Vera whom we've talked about a lot.
Hmm sounds like your friend Keith from the post about the 99% failure jobs vs the 99% success jobs would enjoy being a mortgage approver at a bank compared to doing sales. Likewise although you think coding all day is "dry", I think it's fun like how your friend loves taking care of horses. The problem with my current job is that although I get to code, it doesn't pay well and a hedge fund offers 6x the salary for the exact same work. As much as I love code I would also like to buy a car so I can go to activities after work (America requires cars since we have horrible public transport). Also when I'm burnt out from coding I'd love to have money for exotic vacations. So me looking for a job in finance that uses math/code is similar to if Jeff tried to find the highest paying job he is qualified for which still let's him manage horses.
DeleteLol I heard in Australia because they have universal healthcare they also need to use obscene money to attract doctors to work in the outback and reach rural populations. The kind of money we're talking about is in the 7 figures. So many Aussie doctors work in the outback for a few years to save up for a house, then move back to the big cities. A job's a job I suppose.
Yeah one thing that sucks about minimum wage jobs is that there are usually an endless army of students who want to work part time. And part time workers are cheaper than full timers because they don't need health insurance or other benefits like paid leave. But this is why college degrees cost money, because it is an investment product like any other and does provide a return on investment through higher earnings.
Right, different jobs would suit different people because of our different characters and temperaments. If coding will bring you joy the way working with horses makes Jeff happy, then why not? Thank goodness coding pays well in the right context. There are teachers who run courses who teach children how to code then there are expert coders who are paid an insane amount of money to work for the top financial institutions - you should be aiming for the latter and cashing in on your talents & skills Amanda. Poor Jeff doesn't make a lot of money - he's the guy who keeps the stables clean, feed the horses and sometimes prepare the horses for riding. It is the owner of the equestrian center who charges people to ride the horses who makes the money as he is the business owner - someone like Jeff will always be very poor, but at least Jeff doesn't really mind that as long as he gets to work with horses, so unlike Vera, he is poor but happy. Let's just focus on the happy rather than the poor, it might be a different story if Jeff one day gets married and has children, then his priorities might change and he may end up more like Lydia once he has to provide for a family.
DeleteHmm, I would say that some of my coworkers are happy not to make more than 5 figures their whole life if it means they get to code. And if they're happy with that and don't want to hustle like I do over LinkedIn asking school alumni for advice, then that's fine because hustling is a lot of work. Everyday I keep thinking about when DE Shaw will reply and if they will even give me an interview. I heard to get the job one needs to pass a 30 min phone interview, then fly to New York (expenses paid) for 2 interviews in the morning, a lunch with coworkers, then 2 interviews in the afternoon. That's a lot of work just to get an internship! Money takes hustle, there are no free lunches. So I get if people are happy to forgo earnings to hustle less, but that isn't me.
DeleteJeff seems like a nice person who is happy doing what he's doing. Can't say the same for most people who don't even know what they want or like to do. But unfortunately at some age people do have to think about retirement savings or money for a family, unless one is lucky enough to live in countries with good labor unions and a decent welfare state.
Well I look at my classmates from back at school and university - some of them are crazy rich today and massively successful whilst some others are barely making ends meet. It's not like any of them are stupid per se, but rather some people are hungry for success whilst others are not. It's the settler vs maximizer debate all over again. Those who settle for a simple life (ie. Jeff working at the stables) are spared the stress of those who are pushing themselves to succeed. I don't really know Jeff well despite having spent a few hours with him, but I don't think he could cut it in the big city. I am always very cynical about small town folks who always come across as a bit naive about what it is like to live in the big city and do a job in the business world. It's not like there's anything wrong with what Jeff is doing though - he is happy after all. And please, very very few countries have decent welfare states. The only exception are the Nordic countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. In the UK, if you are dependent on welfare, it's a very miserable life getting by on very, very little money.
DeleteI don't mean welfare per se as in unemployment benefits, but instead I mean the government services that are available regardless of employment status. I remember playing boardgames with a group of people and saying I'm surprised people can have children without thinking because childcare, healthcare/insurance, and education costs are very expensive. Then a German boardgamer replied "yes, but as a German when I hear that list I think `free, free, free'". In a country with subsidized daycare, universal healthcare, and free education up to tertiary level there is less risk of child poverty even if the parent only makes minimum wage.
DeleteAmerica is a weird country with respect to the other OECD countries because we have a low minimum wage, and expensive versions of childcare, healthcare, and education. People even go bankrupt over the last two like in third world countries. I dunno about the UK, but it seems somewhere in between the US and Germany with respect to government services. Hmm, if I didn't live in the US maybe I'd feel less greedy, because being poor here really, really sucks.
Aaaah okay fair point. But allow me to put things in perspective as well, in Europe free doesn't = good. Free = cheap, minimum standard. So here's an example from the UK: we have something called 'free school meals' for kids who come from very poor families, this is to make sure that even if they are food insecure at home, they at least get one hot meal a day during the school day. So during the lockdown, the kids who are on the programme were sent a box of food to make sure that they still get that free meal but many criticized the contents of the food package as 'very basic'. And a number of us rolled our eyes and thought, did you expect to find lobsters, caviar and the finest chocolates in these food packages? Like what were you expecting? These kids were getting fed in school sure, but the food wasn't exactly of a high quality either given the limited budgets. Likewise, sure if you're completely homeless, you could be put up in emergency accommodation but these are usually pretty disgusting. Of course, not everything complies with that rule - German universities are free, they do not charge high tuition fees like their American counterparts so that's one area where free = wow.
DeleteBut oh yeah, being poor really sucks in most countries, really.
Yeah it's not the best quality since most European countries are not completely communist. But it is something. A strong minimum wage however is probably more impactful than the government giving out free food/housing. But either way like your post below about how content Singaporeans of the older generation were just to not work a blue collar job, people over time will demand things that not only keep them alive, but also make them feel happy. Imagine the outcry if governments said they would only subsidize money making university majors for poor students and not things like Art or Music.
DeleteHeck, even in the most communist countries like North Korea, Vietnam, China and Cuba, they don't have a high standard of living either. Communism and socialism isn't the answer either - one's best bet to a better life (as described in my post earlier today) is to take charge of your future, work hard and make the right decisions that will lead to a good career. We do have a reasonable minimum wage here in the UK but still, those on minimum wage have a bleak future. Even if we increase the minimum wage substantially to bring them in line with what is in Scandinavia, you risk slaughtering the goose that lays the golden eggs when the business owners who are hiring these low-skilled staff are forced to pay more and more in salaries to the point where they can no longer make the business profitable, then they simply shut down the business and the low-skilled staff end up unemployed - it's a no-win situation, rising the minimum wage isn't a magical solution that will fix everything. Take Jeff for example, if the equestrian center pays him more, then they have to find a way to finance it: do the owners earn less and share the profits with Jeff? Or they charge the customers more for the riding lessons? What if doing that simply drives the customers away if they go do rock climbing, paddle boarding or any other outdoor activity instead if the prices of horse riding lessons increases overnight just to give Jeff a pay rise? My point is simple: that money has got to come from somewhere, the question is where?
DeleteI think in the case of a restaurant whose workers are paid so little but whose owner is driving a Ferrari, it isn't fair that the business is so profitable but the workers are not sharing in it. But if restaurant workers were in higher demand but supply is low then there would be some other restaurant that pays better. But unfortunately it is cruel to simply let people starve if we have an oversupply of low-skill labor. I remember I was reading a nytimes article on labor conditions in Amazon warehouses, and someone commented that in Japan natural disasters like Earthquakes or Tsunamis are considered good things for social mobility. It is because rich people suddenly have their houses destroyed and there is magically more demand for house building labor, thereby increasing wages for the poor. Some historians even think that the black death lead to a huge rise in working conditions because a huge part of the work force was suddenly gone, making labor more valuable. I guess one could let the free market do its work to rebalance wages with cost of living, but it will do it in some very cruel ways. Hence some level of socialism is acceptable in most societies to avoid that.
DeleteHmmmm. I think there are two sides of the argument - why are the workers paid so little at the restaurant? Is it because they are not contributing much? I would rather leave the concept of 'sharing fairly' at the door and purely looking at the economics per se: if I pay a worker $20 an hour, I would expect the worker to have earned the company at least a minimum of $20 an hour to justify that pay. Otherwise, how do you evaluate what to pay someone? If you go too far in the direction of equality, then you just end up in the situation like Cuba, where all they've managed to do is to make sure doctors are paid as much as factory workers - everyone is poor and that's hardly an ideal solution. Furthermore, a further factor when it comes to low-skilled restaurant workers is the supply vs demand factor: there are so many unskilled people who can't do complex jobs, they can only do something extremely simple and cannot justify demanding a higher wage if they are not adding value to the business of their employees.
DeleteThe way I see it, I don't think it is the responsibility of the private sector employers to try to play Robin Hood by raising the wages of their lowly skilled employees simply because they feel obliged to share their wealth - instead, I think the government should step in to make sure that the lowly skilled have access to education & training, so they have the opportunity to better themselves. But of course, that means that those who are willing to help themselves will improve their conditions and gain access to better paid jobs whilst those who are too stupid or lazy simply will remain very poor and make bad decisions.
I'm watching a French reality TV show now that is shot in Uganda and there's this Ugandan family with 10 children. Good grief. And they live in a tiny little house - like the father cannot provide for his children, they live in such poverty and all the father can do is sing hymns to praise Jesus for his blessings whilst his 10 children are starving and not getting a decent education. Where do you even begin to help poor people who keep making bad choices to trap not just themselves, but their children and grandchildren in abject poverty? How can the Ugandan government even begin to help this family with 10 children living in abject poverty? China went from being a very poor country to a middle-income nation because of the 1 child policy, that forced parents to spend all their time, money and energies on educating that one single child, so the next generation became a lot better educated and could work their way towards a brighter future. But Uganda will never see the kind of economic transformation that China has if people keep making such poor decisions that trap them in poverty for generation after generation.
So it takes a lot more than expecting the rich to share their wealth - I have seen poor people climb their way out of poverty because they make wise decisions. I would have thought that the fear of hunger and suffering would have been a good motivation for people to want to make wise choices about their futures, but after seeing what is happening in Uganda, oh I despair at the stupidity of human beings.
Don't get me wrong - rich people (myself included) often do charity work by giving money to worthy causes but I make the distinction between giving money to someone because they're poor and giving money to charities who are well-run, free from corruption and are making a very worthwhile contribution to the local community. For example, I would never give that Ugandan father who has 10 children any money because I don't believe in rewarding bad behaviour - I believe in rewarding good behaviour and discouraging bad behaviour. Thus in the context of a company, I think hard working low-skilled workers who show potential and have proven themselves should be helped to access further training, so they can improve themselves and climb their way out of poverty. But there are also low-skilled workers who have bad attitudes, are lazy and make poor choices - it may sound harsh, but such people need punishment not encouragement, they need to realize there are consequences for their actions and thus they need to avoid doing dumb shit like that Ugandan father with 10 children. Hence the concept of the 'deserving poor' - ie. some poor people deserve help whilst others don't.
DeleteI also think the complexity of the economy makes humans feel detached from the sources of our food, clothing, and housing, that it is easier to feel entitled to them without questioning what it takes to make these products. In the far far past when humans were hunter gatherers there was no concept of a "boss", "employee" or even "money." It was just "if you want to eat, become a good hunter", "if you want clothes, become a good gatherer/weaver", and "if you want a house, get good at carpentry." But today how many people, rich or poor, can say they know how to grow food, weave clothing, or build a house? But somehow we as a society think we have enough farmers, tailors, and builders to feed, clothe, and house everyone. I don't really have an answer to this, we might have enough for everyone or we don't. But even if we do it's unlikely anyone will give up anything for free just because it's not difficult for them to make it. Even giving away tax money is difficult for most people.
DeleteI think you've hit the nail on the head with the word "entitled" - people think they are entitled to better pay, better working conditions because there's someone else who earns more and has a better job and it just isn't fair. But since when has life ever been fair? People then turn to their government or their gods and scream, "it is not fair, I want justice!" But for me, I've long gotten used to the unfairness of life and I realize the less time I waste complaining about how unfair life is, the more time I have to do something constructive to help myself get ahead in life, I'm merely choosing to be constructive as my response to this situation.
DeleteI think I see your point of view. Growing up poor you wanted to be able to provide, not just demand to be provided for by the government. Learning to fish instead of begging for fish. But many people do complain "Oh but so and so is rich and sits on their ass all day while enjoying life." I also remember I had a humanities professor in undergrad who said it was unfair that the humanities department is paid less than the sciences because "one cannot choose what they love to do." He felt entitled to be paid decently doing what he loved, regardless of whether it pleases the person who grows the food, weaves the clothes, or builds the houses. Some people really are just takers and not givers. If you're gonna take, at least try to give something fair back.
DeleteI was lucky - I was poor enough for my deprivation to motivate me to want a better life, but not so poor that I wasn't able to access further education. I think about that Ugandan family with ten children, like what hope do the children have for the future when the parents are not able to provide for them? So it's a bit like adding salt to food - a bit of salt will make your soup tastier but too much salt and your soup will become undrinkable. By the same token, a bit of poverty and suffering can actually serve as good motivation for a young person finding his way in life.
DeleteYeah there's a big difference between lacking comforts, and lacking opportunities. Also, even if the Ugandan family only had 1 child, the school and university fees may be too expensive even for 1, or for the education of the parents themselves. One thing we take for granted in a developed country is free K-12 education, which sadly isn't the case in the 3rd world. Regardless, I'm glad I'm only one of 3 children. 2 siblings is hard enough to deal with, imagine 9!
DeleteSpeaking of poverty as a motivator, because the world is reopening rents have suddenly gone up and I have to find a roommate to afford a place on my meagre stipend. It really motivates me to train up the skills I need to find a better job after graduation. I was looking at cheap listings to rent on my own, but all of them had bad reviews about bug infestations. Ugh being poor really sucks... I'm curious, what kind of housing did you have as a student in undergrad, and the few years after? I mean its amazing that you own a few houses in your 40s. I hope that's what I'll have by my 40s too.
DeleteAs an undergrad, I spent my first term in a halls of residence, like a student hostel and it was so bad that I left after 3 months. I then rented a spare room from an old guy for a couple of months until my 2nd year, then I decided to share a house with 2 other students and I picked one very near where I trained gymnastics. Then at the end of my 2nd year I went on exchange in Paris, that's when my university organized a small room for me in an old building with a private landlord. I actually really liked that, apart from the fact that there were no lifts in that part of the building and I had to climb the stairs a lot, but I had no neighbours and it was quiet. I had my own shower and toilet, just no kitchen. Then upon my return from France, I moved in with my partner and we have been living together since! There you go.
DeleteLol that's a lot of different places for 4 years! In Singapore we had single person dorm rooms with communal showers/laundry. But in America its normal that people find off-campus housing. Oh that's nice you had a permanent roommate as soon as you came back from France, how lucky! So he's been with you with for a quite a while then? How sweet.
DeleteWell the thing about both London and Paris is that there are so many international students and not enough university-run halls of residents for them, so the mindset has always been: this is a big city, plenty of rooms to rent, we can put you in touch with estate agents if necessary but go find yourself somewhere to live in the city. I have been living with my husband effectively since 2000, we met in 1998.
DeleteGood day, Limpeh FT
ReplyDeleteOn the case of boring jobs, here is a side note as I have observed regarding foreign talent issue in SG.
SG folks had more good years from 1968 to 1998. At the same time, among some 2 generations of SG folks (baby boomer and post independence), they were beginning to feel bored about white collar boring jobs.
Therefore when the PAP brought in the FTs, many of these folks happily supported it. They imagined a situation where FTs would do the boring white collar jobs while they could "explore higher opportunities".
Fast forward 20+ years, the FTs in boring white collar jobs have accumulated a considerable amount of $$$ while their same age group SG folks seem to be constantly struggling with $$$ issues.
Of course there are also many other reasons why SG folks end up being left behind.
Thanks for your comment, allow me to respond please. I would dispute your claim about SG folks having good years from 68 to 98 - a lot of that has got to do with the fact that people were a lot more easily satisfied back then. We're talking about my parents' generation here: when they were young, they were very poor and just to have running water, electricity, food on the table at mealtimes, to be able to walk into a supermarket and afford meat - that was more than enough to make them very happy (and grateful to the PAP). But the younger generation, people like me, we become less easily satisfied and part of that has got to do with the fact that we're a lot better educated. My parents are barely educated and to be fair, the quality of education during WW2 and the post-war years was terrible, so that's why many of my parents' generation are poorly educated. But fast forward to my generation and my nephew's generation, we're a lot better educated and when you have a degree, when you've worked so hard - you're not going to be content doing a 'boring office job'. I reflect that in my parents' generation, even getting an office job doing clerical paper work was considered respectable as it demonstrated that you 'pak li' (Hokkien, meaning you're literate). But if someone of my generation ended up doing the same job, it won't be considered respectable at all. It'll be like, damn you should've studied harder and gone to university, then you won't be a lowly clerk doing boring paperwork today, tsk tsk.
DeleteI don't think that FTs have that much to do with boring white collar jobs - the fact is technology had a much, much bigger impact than FTs ever did. Take accounting for example, nowadays everything is done on computers and we have some brilliant accounting software programmes that all accountants use to make their jobs a lot easier. Back in the 1980s, everything was done by hand in books and ledgers - the most complex computer an accountant had in 1985 was a calculator. No, the FTs were brought in for two reasons: to ensure that there will always be a steady source of voters who are grateful to the PAP and will always vote PAP and secondly, to deal with the historically low birth rates since Singaporeans are not having enough babies at all to sustain the ageing population.
As for SG folk who are 'left behind', I completely disagree with you - mind you, I hate the PAP so much I left Singapore for good. But my point is that nobody owes you anything, you are responsible for your own future. When I came to the UK, did the government help me? Hell no, I got ZERO help as a foreigner whilst all the schemes designed to help young people get work were for local British people and not foreigners, immigrants like me. I carved a career with my own bare hands, I worked my butt off, I studied hard, I proved myself again and again and again to get to where I am today where I am a multi-millionaire in my 40s who got no help from anyone. I got nothing from my parents, nothing from the government, nothing from anyone.
So please excuse me as I roll my eyes in disbelief when Singaporeans blame the PAP about being left behind. Please grow up and take responsibility for your own future, stop blaming the PAP and FTs. Start blaming yourselves for not having worked hard enough to secure your own future. If you've made dumb choices whilst "exploring higher opportunities", then that's your own fault for not having made the right decisions to ensure that you had a brighter future. I don't like the PAP, I hate them in fact - but I also look down on Singaporeans who refuse to take responsibility for their own failures in life.
Thanks much for the article and sharing on the considerations/ metrics for assessing the value of a (potential) job. It's pretty comprehensive! As to the relative weightage, totally agree that it varies from person to person.
ReplyDeleteTo Amanda - perhaps another factor is age or rather different phases of life, with that comes different priorities. Example, when you are young, career and growth comes first, then later in life, you might want to pursue other interests or balance with other commitments. Hope I'm making sense.
No worries, I am always happy to share and help - glad you liked this piece.
Delete