I a long-winded way of saying “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.”
This irks me chat. This is an elephant in the room that should be causing mass chaos
As someone who's both ND and with a diminished social circle from an isolating family, I hate that people still talk about getting a job as just a matter of applying like there isn't preferential treatment for connected people.
And framing education as the 'great equalizer' hasn't done anything to dispel the myth of meritocracy.
I hate that people still talk about getting a job as just a matter of applying like there isn't preferential treatment for connected people.
And framing education as the 'great equalizer' hasn't done anything to dispel the myth of meritocrcy
100% this
So you'd like to go back to a time when it was far more "who you know"?
I've been hired many times merely from submitting a resume and interviewing, and not knowing a soul.
And I don't have a bunch of letters after my name - I have a nominal education.
I've been hired exactly one time from knowing someone (I've had many jobs) - but I also had the skills, stayed with the company and took on a lot of work for my team. I felt a serious obligation to the relationship with the person who recommended me. (Plus the interview was good, I wouldn't have been hired otherwise).
So meritocracy exists - it's just that you don't see it fully. Those soft skills are as important (perhaps more important) than the technical - and that's noticed. The merit can be someone's ability to contribute to the team spirit, help keep their peers on the same page, motivated.
And I say this as someone who's soft skills aren't really that good, in fact it's probably my weakness.
So you'd like to go back to a time when it was far more "who you know"?
In my experience it's like that now. All work I've got was because someone I know knew someone else who's current employer was looking for workers.
I think every job I've had I got by knowing the right people. The meritocracy thing isn't something I've ever experienced.
Being well connected and having high social standing are ‘soft skills’ or whatever the fuck.
From your account of your own experiences, I can predict and promise you your name and social class has made a big difference in getting the job
Meritocracy in the current US workforce is absolutely fake, what lmao. What is this shit.
It exists among the skilled trades within the construction industry, where the value of one's labor is tied to a very tangible and measurable output. High producers are able to command a higher wage because they earn the bosses more money (or they'll take their skillset elsewhere).
This reads a lot like you really want meritocracy to be real so you're trying to find evidence for it. Even if you got a job without knowing anyone, how do you know it's not some other reason?
If meritocracy exists how do we explain the absolutely massive wealth gap? What about all those economists who say it's a myth? Even the liberals like Robert Reich say it's a myth.
I think you misunderstand - Education is good, but it is not an equalizer when it is just the default requirement in a given field. Other factors come into play based on your free time. It's hard to do an unpaid internship, make connections with peers, or take on extra skill training when you're forced to work a full time job just to go to school.
And being neurotypical isn't a merit one earns. If I don't inherently understand how to socialize outside of work or build team spirit, that's extra work I have to do outside of actually doing the work I'm paid for.
How is that rewarding merit and not just the circumstances you inherited?
Edit: I don't want to go backwards. I want to go forward to a time where we don't screen for people based on their ability to smile and attend Christmas parties. We can get there by not accepting this as normal or fair.
I've been hired many times merely from submitting a resume and interviewing, and not knowing a soul.
Many such cases!
As someone who probably has had a similar amount of professional success with getting jobs cold, you just dont see the LACK of meritocracy. I know I wouldnt've been hired to several of my jobs if my name wasnt so white. You get to know hiring managers after enough time. Just because the is a minimun set of skills required for a job does not mean meritocracy exists.
there are some exceptions, like a lot of extremely dangerous professions like crab fishing and underwater welding being paid disproportionately for their typical social clout (obviously not true of all dangerous positions, counter-example is sanitation workers), but yeah
The key is that those dangerous professions make a lot of money, Janitors not so much, the social clout comes from the money, not the job. Especially thinking of Oil workers here.
Also, extreme hours can be a thing. I know a place where the blue-color workers make 250K+ while the engineers might not make 6-figures. But the engineers are M-F 9-5 (most of the time) while the workers were rotating shifts and often had months where they averaged 90+ hrs/week.
My jobs have consistently gotten easier and less demanding as I’ve been promoted and made more money. I don’t think this is true across the board, but it’s common enough that the opposite should not be as prevalent of a “common sense” opinion as it is.
The only major exceptions are for doctors and certain highly technical, dangerous manual labor jobs.
Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber(pdf) has a lot to say on the subject of pointless, low effort jobs that pay well.
In my experience the more I've gotten paid the less stressful my job has been.
My pay was worst when my job was taking emotional abuse from the consumer public while working in a hot kitchen where I got burned a lot.
It improved when my job became taking emotional abuse from the consumer public in an air-conditioned setting.
It improved a lot more when I lucked into a promotion where I touch spreadsheets and send out emails about the spreadsheets and nobody screams at me anymore.
no, this is backwards. salaries are based on the amount of surplus labor that capitalists are able to extract from labor power in that type of job. the superstructure of a "social hierarchy" flows from these divisions and from previous incarnations (like when there was a big difference between educated intelligentsia and near-illiterate proles. now all work requires formal education). You can see this in the changing cultural views of jobs that have changed in pay.
This does not explain why people whose jobs are solely to send emails are so highly paid.
The Bullshit Jobs explanation is that the bullshit jobs are those which are most valuable to Capital, not the jobs that are socially valuable.
but what actually makes the email jobs valuable to capital when they're essentially bullshit?
A group of coddled faux-elites with so little exposure to serious work that they could never sympathize with union organizers? They are the grease between the vampires and the zeks, keeping a solid buffer between those with power by fiat and those with power in fact.
Yeah it does. Which specific jobs are you talking about? I think Graeber is good, but "email jobs" is no more descriptive than "counter jobs" or something. Lots of different counters you can sit behind, lots of different emails you can send. We do ourselves a disservice by trying to analyze "the laptop class" or whatever without examples.
I was going to spell this out in initial comment but decided in favor of brevity. By "the amount of surplus labor capitalists are able to extract from labor power in that type of job", I mean that efficient extraction of labor power in some roles can force capitalists to steal less surplus in other roles. For instance, if programmers are paid $200k to save finance firms $1m a year in operational improvements, nonprofits may have to pay their programmers $90k even if they're getting nowhere near $500k of surplus labor out of the deal, because otherwise the programmers can go work for finance firms and make $200k. Lawyer jobs that close billion-dollar mergers or wiggle out of EPA fines make it more expensive to hire a criminal defense attorney. When labor is commoditized, you get something similar to the minimal socially necessary amount of labor that values commodities. So I expect that many high-paid "bullshit jobs" are staffed by labor that could be extracted more efficiently in other roles.
e: on second thought, second paragraph may be bourgeois labor market theory rephrased into LTV. But I think it's obvious that salaries are part of economic base, and social hierarchy is superstructure, not the other way around.
Responding late but by "email jobs" I'm talking about all the MBA jobs that corporations are stuffed with. These people mostly send out emails about if a project is done yet and hold meetings about how done projects are (usually color-coded to green, yellow, and red). They don't create surplus value so capitalists can't skim the surplus value off of them.
Do you mean consultants? Project managers? I think an actual job title would help me understand what you're talking about.
The specific ones I'm thinking of are called Business Analysts.
these seem like they do grunt analysis to inform management decisions. i.e. help to more efficiently extract from other workers
Sounds like I’m batting out of my league because this is the first time I’ve heard of the word “superstructure”
I’ve also noticed how I get more opportunities for movement up the hierarchy whenever I mask well. But that could also be overanalyzing so who knows
it's helpful concept. dialectical materialism aims to do analysis by looking at how the real world affects our ideas and how our ideas affect the real world (the dialogue or dialectic between the two). On a society-wide level, Marxists identify a "base" (material conditions - how production is organized, who lives where, etc) and a "superstructure" (corollary ideas). We think that the base primarily influences the superstructure, not the other way around ("Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."). For instance, in capitalism we have ideas like "meritocracy", and these take hold as popular ways to understand the material conditions of economic disparity. Often the superstructure lingers after the material conditions have changed. For instance racism originally came into prominence to justify the chattel slave trade of Africans. Now chattel slavery is gone, but those racist ideas persist and affect the base, which changes the ideas, etc. Another example is how religion changed as capitalism developed: as the church lost power over society, Christianity developed the idea of a personal relationship with God instead of one mediated through the church. (And then there's the Anglican split which is more explicit.)
so discrimination against ND people like you've experienced is real, and it's easier for an individual to get ahead if they look NT/white/male/etc, BUT the structural existence of that discrimination is a result of economic conditions. it's not that someone sat down and said let's organize society so the jobs have payscales according to the identities of the workers. It's that society is laid out in a way that works for capitalists, and the ideology of what's "normal" springs up to defend/explain/enforce the existing order. The many changes in American non-black racism to fit changing economic conditions provide great examples, e.g. How the Irish Became White.
Salaries are one part a maintenance fee to keep the worker able to work and one part based in supply and demand. It's not "how much rich people like you", rather it is "how can you be kept working for us" (the requirement of which depends on industry and how much training is required. For example, logistics and food have a very high churn whereas white collar jobs can take longer to get a worker generating surplus value so they are paid more), and "how difficult is it to hire someone here" (which is why lawyers and doctors are highly paid as there is a high supply and a low demand). How wages are determined is discussed in depth by Marx, among other scholars.
More or less. I did eventually land a job with my degree and it's the easiest work I've ever had at $19 an hour. I feel sorry for my co-workers who work just as hard as me, but sometimes earn less.
Mine is slightly based on merit but only because the people who I assist are there because of hierarchy. My position exists due to their incompetence.
Of course who you know plays into it.
The reality is that developing cohesive teams that work well together is the hardest thing to do in any business. It's why enterprises spend so much money on team building of any sort. Why they'll have basketball courts, volleyball courts, bowling, softball, and teams for them all.
It's pretty amazing to watch people change at work when they are part of these things. Even more amazing to see it in yourself, even when you're aware of the purpose of such things.
Having the technical skills is a baseline, being able to work well with others is the minimum, but everyone is looking for people who can lead - as we all have to lead when we have the expertise for the gap we're facing. So if you know one person because they've worked with someone on your team who works well with others, of course that makes them more attractive.
It's kind of tiring hearing the NA complaint about this. Yes, we're not like most people, but screaming at the world to change to suit us is ineffective. The best we can do is work on figuring things out, and maybe getting individuals on board by engaging with them not adversarially, but as teammates trying to achieve a goal together.
Because even NT kids poorly raised with crappy attitudes aren't going to be sought after.
In the end, build your social net. Work on developing your own "team" - people you've met along the way that would make good teammates.
Stay in touch (there are systems for this, sales people are really good at it, see what they do, maybe get one into your circle). We may find the soft skills annoyingly, confoundingly irrational, but it doesn't change they exist, it's the way the world works, and we're not changing that.
The liberal has mistaken the artificially built current status quo for the natural, inalienable order of things!nah i'm going to scream at neurotypicals until they stop being shitheads thanks. i'll be as adversarial as i want
·3 months agoFuck that, I don't wanna mask. They can take their shitty games and rituals and stuff it.
We may find the divine right of kings to be annoyingly, confoundingly irrational, but it doesn't change that it exists, it's the way the world works, and we're not changing that.
Individualism. It's coming from "one individual person yelling at their boss to accommodate them probably won't work" and extrapolating that across society.
It's probably true to some extent that, as an individual, you will get better results if you aren't too quick to become hostile, but in many circumstances continuing to be nice and roll over just leads to worse and worse working conditions as well, and collectively such pushback actually does make a difference
Unfortunately comrade, the real existential consequences of materialism (and the reality that it isn't meritocratic but simply the web of networks and connections you are born in and must exercise agency in) is something ppl can't generally cope with.
So they believe they've earned their position even though the deciding factor is often who they know.
This doesn't necessarily mean they are unqualified (though sometimes it is) but that they did not truly ever 'earn' it.
If only
had leaned even harder into "you didn't build that", it would have been better.
