|
|
|
|
|
|
by shiroiushi
621 days ago
|
|
|
>they work that job because all the real jobs left for Asia back in the late 1980s. They did? If you mean STEM jobs, the Starbucks workers were never going to get those jobs in the first place. Anyone capable of doing those jobs got a college degree in STEM and got a job in that field in the US; there's plenty of STEM jobs available, and in fact a shortage of workers in many fields. The only jobs these Starbucks workers could have done was factory work, and that isn't going to pay for $3k/month apartments either. Even here, there's lots of hands-on manual labor work in the US, but it's not in nice cities with $3k apartments, but rather in generally crappy places to live (and a lot of the work is probably outdoors too, in frequently terrible weather conditions). I'm guessing most of these /r/antiwork people just don't want to move there. |
|
|
No.
> there's plenty of STEM jobs available,
This sort of statement is always sort of bizarre. Did you mean there are "many"? Many and plenty aren't synonyms. But even if you meant "many", given the scale of the US population, the working-age portion of it, and so forth, the numbers that are often cited aren't many at all. And that's when the economy is doing great. We've been talking about layoffs here on HN for over a year at this point, it seems like one after the other, so we're not really in that cycle either. There aren't "plenty of jobs". No sane, honest person should be describing jobs as "plentiful".
> The only jobs these Starbucks workers could have done was factory work, and that isn't going to pay for $3k/month apartments either.
That's an interesting theory. I suppose if you figure the factory work is only going to pay McDonald's wages (seeing alot of $14/hour around where I am)...
> Even here, there's lots of hands-on manual labor work in the US
Where, roughly? And what's "lots" mean to you?