people choose their own jobs -- should they?

Factual Questions
1

This isn’t a Great Debate - I’m not actually proposing that the government or anyone else determine what jobs people do.

But I have to wonder – how do people end up with their jobs? Maybe they their father or mother or cool cousin with a particular job. Maybe they watched ER and decided to be a doctor. Maybe they wanted to be near somebody they had a crush on in college and ended up taking some courses that led them in a particular direction.

In any case, a lot of people end up in jobs that have never been “checked” for the need of the economy or whether they would be more proficient in something else.

Without taking into account government bureaucratic bungling, how much better would the economy run if everyone had to a) take some serious proficiency exam to see what job they would be best at and b) see what jobs the economy needs?

2

>> see what job the economy needs?

you really need to do a survey for that? I can tell you right away: The economy pays money for the jobs it needs, more money for the jobs it needs more. It pays nothings for the things I would like to do…

>> … if everyone had to a) take some serious proficiency exam to see what job they would be best at…

They do all the time, continously, at their jobs. People who fail are sent home to think about what they would be good at.

3

A free market is probably the most efficient possible means of communicating the needs of the economy. What the economy needs more of pays more, what the economy needs less of, pays less. People are then encouraged to find employment that matches their talents and desires with the needs of the economy. Not a perfect system, but better than trying to get someone to figure out what the economy needs.

4

Are you trying to say there aren’t a lot of people who have studied a certain profession, but aren’t suited for it (although they work in it) and couldn’t be better placed elsewhere?

No real estate agents who would make better school teachers? No doctors who would make better construction workers?

While the numbers might be lower than I would assume, I’m certain there is a significant number, and if you could play Sim-Economy, you might get a higher score if you reworked things a bit.

5

I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that the needs of the economy are impossible to plan for.

As for a doctor who’d make a better construction worker, I think our society needs mediocre doctors more than outstanding construction workers, as even a fairly unimpressive doctor makes better money than pretty much any construction worker. And even if you did manage to figure out someone’s optimal profession in high school, before they wasted time learning another profession, what’s to say it’s what that person wants to do? How do you convince them to give up a better paying job for the good of society?

6

Being better suited for a job will do absolutely no good if you are stuck in a job you had no choice over, and therefore will never put forth the effort you would at a job you like being at. Many of us have jobs we do not like, and know that we would work much harder if we actually liked coming in everyday. Worker moral would plummet if you forced a bunch of people to do what some testing said they were best suited for.
In high school, every proficiency test was very obvious to me, and I was able to answer the questions accordingly each time to come up with a result for a career in something I loved, rather than something I thought would best be handled by my head.

7

Three points:

People who are good at one thing are more often than not capable of being good at another. All it leaves you with is a test result which is so broad that it is meaningless.

People change as they go through life. What they think they would enjoy when tested as a youth may not be what they enjoy as an adult.

The OP proposition is fundamentally backward. We do not exist to serve the economy. I submit that the economy exists to serve us. The efficiency of our finding our own paths in life should be secondary to our having opportunities for finding such paths.

8

Curwin: In a free market economy, the number of jobs, types of jobs, and wages are determined by supply and demand. This is why the U.S. rarely (if ever?) experiences long-term shortages in any labor category, and why each person is (in theory) paid exactly what they’re worth.

9

Hi curwin, something else you might like to consider is synergy… can we gain advantages when someone trained in one field works in another and brings their knowledge and experience with them?

For example, I work in IT (software analysis) and one of my co-workers trained as a lawyer. Having gained her degree she decided that she didn’t want to be a lawyer and ended up at a software company. Her law training makes her an excellent reviewer of business requirement documents (she’s really good at finding the loopholes and inconsistencies). Our company gains from that ability, and those of us who work with her also get better at doing the same sort of review.

If there had been some system that determined before law school that she wouldn’t make a good lawyer then she’d never have gained that training and carried it into a completely different field where it is benefiting both her and me.

10

Something that hasn’t been brought right out in this thread yet, but has been danced around: Humans, by and large, are generalists, not specialists, by nature. That means someone can have talents in, and become fairly proficient in, more than one occupation. For example, look at the lawyer-turned-software analyst mentioned by Apollyon above. It would be stupid to constrain people to whatever some test, or battery of tests, said they would be good at. The economy already rewards people for doing what it needs done (salary = (demand/supply), very roughly), so let that guide people to pick one of the things they are good at. Self-interest usually benefits the general good, as free-market economies show. We don’t need to be led by the hand to do whatever job the government thinks the economy should need.

11

This is frustrating. As I thought I made clear in the OP I am asking a theoretical question. I know that supply and demand come into account. I know that the governement or any other outside institution should have no role in determining which jobs people take. I’m not planning on telling you what job you should take.

I don’t really see how this is different than the dozens of other theoretical questions asked and answered on this board. What if I asked – what would the life expectancy be in the US if everyone took vitamins every day. Would you be asking me “How can you force people to take vitamins? I don’t like the taste of vitamins? Who will pay for these vitamins?”

So I’ll try to rephrase the question. Maybe the “should they” in the subject was too much. My question is now, how much damage is done to society and the economy by people picking bad jobs?

Lets say all the people on the SDMB move to a desert island. What if they all decide they want to be doctors? Or they all decide they want to be florists? Well, that just won’t work out, will it. In any society, I can assume there is something like an ideal number of doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc per population when you take into account demographic factors like age, wealth, etc.

If the answer isn’t known – ok. But by no means is the question as crazy as it’s being made out to be.

12

There’s a similar test administered by guidance counsellors for teens having difficulty figuring out what they’d be good at. I took it in high school, again in CEGEP, and man oh man was it completely useless.

The final recommendations for me were examining such worthy careers as Postmaster, professional hairdresser, or nuclear engineer-technician.

Exsqueeze me? Can you get 3 careers that have so little in common, but apparently are all perfectly suited for my talents and interests?

For the record, I’m now working in a TV station as a news producer-- which never appeared on the final list of suitable careers.

13

I’d suggest you look at centrally-planned economies like the USSR and Cuba: Chronic shortages, inability to compete on an international level, huge unemployment, etc. In other words, a complete destruction of the economy and a huge strain on everything else. (social structure, government, etc.) That is what would happen if your plan was put into action.

Free-market economies sidestep these problems by offering incentives for doing what people want done. Even if you aren’t doing your absolute favorite job, the money can persuade you to stay if there is a demand for what you are doing, and can give you a nice retirement and life beyond that job. Shortages never happen (or happen very rarely) because people pay more for what they really need done, luring people away from other jobs to fill the shortage. Surpluses don’t happen for the opposite reason: People are paid less for doing what too many are doing anyway, warning people away from that occupation. Self-interest and the generalist nature of most humans makes free-market job markets work, and work they do. :slight_smile:

14

Yes, of course you asked a theoretical question, curwin. Why do you think that everyone’s giving you theoretical answers? You asked, what if there were a system in place to put people in the jobs where they’re needed. The answer is that there already is such a system, and it’s in place.

15

I’m sorry about the theoretical thing. I know how frustrating that can be: you can just rest assured that someone, somewhere, knows what you mean.

FWIW

No, people should not choose their own jobs. I should choose them. I am not, of course, advocating some kind of global monarchy [gentle, intimidating laugh] - just that someone has to choose them, and as a hypothetical it may as well be me, so we may as well take that as concrete and make it OFFICIALLY ME FOREVER. K? Oh, and “monarchy” implies some kind of succession. We’ll… see how that goes, shall we?

The first job up for grabs is My Butler. The next is My Valet. They go on down the line (I’m a people person and demand no more than 2000 in my immediate retinue) until at the very bottom of the 6 billion is the most often-demoted dung-gatherer on my estate. My estate includes the entire world, obviously. Said dung-gatherer will be made My Butler for the next administration, whenever that may occur, if anyone dares to claim the honour.
I’m sorry, wasn’t this what you meant? Perhaps we could find you a place as one of the fourth three hundred footmen. You’ll be in charge of wildlife in the Lower Americas. Remember, if in doubt offer yourself as food rather than an endangered animal… I’m sure I don’t need to remind you of the recycling principles that will be invoked if you fail… we must get meat from somewhere.

16

curwin,
I think I know what you are getting at. I myself have often wondered what drives people to do the jobs that they have. You know, what drives someone to be a high rise construction worker, or a doctor, etc… I myself wanted to be a doctor once, until I realized that I would be a bad one since I have a natural dislike of people in general. In the technical sense, I’d probably be a great one, but if you don’t like people, there’s sort of a conflict of interest with the Hypocratic oath and all… blah blah blah, anyway…

As far as what the economy needs, that already exists to a certain point. If there is no demand, there is no hiring. If there is a demand, people work towards it, perhaps not so much out of love for the job but the job itself. Remember a few years back when the IT explosion began and everyone was trying to become a computer expert? Not that everyone loved puters, but that was where the job/money/security was at the moment. Now, the market is kind of flooded but there is a shortage of nurses, so there’s a lot of people working towards becoming an R.N. There’s a bit of a time lag in it all, but it does kind of work in a supply and demand type of thing.

As far as people doing what they are good at… it’s a roll of the dice. Some people are very talented in certain areas, but do not really enjoy the work. Only a true professional can do a job that they dislike, and only then for a certain amount of time. People simply have to be able to do what they enjoy to be happy.

As far as the scenario of an island, I’ve thought of the same thing, as I’ve mentioned. “How does a group of people figure out who does what”? If you have a group of people that are all doctors, or have a natural talent for being doctors and nothing else… forget it… you won’t last too long. But I think that generally, you will find a good mix of talent and desires among a randomly selected group. As I’ve mentioned, I enjoy woodworking and am very good at it, but I don’t understand how some people can actually enjoy construction jobs for a living and take great pride in it. I know I couldn’t do it. Yet some people don’t care if they hate their job, they are all about the money. All people are different, and between personal preference and general job markets, it usually works out okay all things considered.

Just some ramblings of a guy on cold medication, advil PM, and booze.