"That's Not a Real Job"

Sansha

There's a principle in business
Nov 16, 2008
1,726
0
0
If it makes money, it's a job.

I'm in property development and moonlighting as an actor. People say neither are real jobs because I don't 'do anything'. I could fit a third part-time job in, but I don't need to - I made $720k last year.

I used to work at McDonald's, and before that as a builder's laborer. I've literally dug ditches and hauled rocks for my living. You can't disrespect anyone for their profession, as long as they work hard, support themselves and their families, and if they're happy doing it, so much the better. That's called winning at life.

Haters are going to hate. You have to do whatever makes you happy, and not let anyone tell you any different.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
Aramis Night said:
Verlander said:
Aramis Night said:
Gilhelmi said:
Aramis Night said:
snip
I'm not in debt to anyone for anything(something credit agencies seem to despise. Whenever they run a background check on my credit it comes out with a bad credit score because its blank). I live within my means and have been given no handouts, or benefits of any kind.
snip
I am bugging my congressmen and representatives, to pass legislation to automatically give good credit points to people every year they do not have debt. Trying to get others to join me.

I am thinking about getting more involved in politics just to bug people to fix problems like this. It is good too see other fiscal conservatives out there (Note: I said FISCAL, just nipping the dozen people hating on me for saying the "C" word)
I would love it if my lack of debt would reflect well on my credit score. But i don't think that passing laws is the answer. It just shows that credit scores are less of an indication of risk and more an indication of potential profit for lending agencies. If you do not have debt and are driven to stay debt free, than any lenders you deal with don't stand to make much money on interest dealing with you and have no incentive to do so.

One solution i would like to see is credit scores being information beyond the reach of any businesses that are not lenders and only with your permission to obtain a loan or credit. Living within your means could in some fields actually cost you promotions because some employers do credit checks.

Oh and don't worry. I'm not offended by the notion of being related to fiscal conservatism. My positions are varied, but i'll admit that fiscal conservatives have a lot of good points. I'll take that as a compliment :)
The "bad credit rating" is more to do with the fact you can't consistently prove that you can pay back within your means, rather than profit making. Some people who massively borrow can have a great credit rating, as can people who borrow very little - the rating isn't dependent on size of debt, or potential profit, but the risk of you taking out a first time loan and never being able to pay it back because you're not used to it (or you already have allocated your monthly renumeration, like salary).

A really simple way to boost your credit rating would be to get a minimal charge credit card and spend maybe £10 or so a month on it, paying the debt off immediately so it doesn't accrue any interest. As credit rating systems are mostly automated, this will begin to eventually give you a great rating as a reliable lender. It's easier said than done though, and don't use the credit card for anything more than this - those things are also the easiest way to get a bad credit rating through abuse of the card. It's far too tempting when you are stuck for money or in an awkward situation to use them beyond what you can safely pay back
You're actually making my point. People who can't live within their means constantly have to borrow money or live on credit. The fact that people who massively borrow can have great credit scores illustrates just how profit based the credit score system is. If they were actually good at allocating their funds properly, they would not need to borrow money. You can slip further and further into debt and your level of inability to live within your means and to pay back your debts will be masked by being offered increased credit limits or transferring debt to different lenders/cards without ever actually having to pay off the balance of previous debts.

The fact that your solution is simply another method of manipulating the system shows just how broken the credit rating system is. Aside from obtaining a credit score, what possible reason can one have to keep a debt balance of $10 when they don't need to be in debt? As it is, the credit rating system lumps together the most financially responsible with those who are the least financially responsible.

For myself, being without debt is a matter of honour. I know its a concept unfamiliar to most. Carrying debt should not be normal, as it is for most people now. Holding onto debt is irresponsible.
I wasn't exactly disputing your point, just making a friendly contribution :)

The fact remains though that borrowing should never be about being able to support yourself, and is unsustainable if you try. That's why the credit ratings system exists. If you have a large amount borrowed, it doesn't mean that you are surviving on that, it means you are using a financial system to support your activities, possibly even in a way that benefits you.

Here's a brief, casual friendly explanation (I hope). I work for a UK based international firm - to give you a scale, despite being UK based, we are one of the top 5 largest privately owned businesses in the US. Our net revenue at the end of the 2012 fiscal year was over $30Bn. We are big. We borrow insane quantities of money each month. Why? To pay wages. Every member of our firm is paid out of a credit agreement by a financial services company, because the payment is reliable and on time (whereas clients paying our bills may not be). The speed in which our bills are paid reduces the interest we pay, and we factor in this provision when creating our bills, but the important thing is that we pay our staff efficiently, we comply with local laws, we pay our taxes and so on. We are not in any danger of being bankrupt anytime soon (even though we pay $millions per month interest from overdue patyments from our clients). We have a very good credit rating. We would not be able to comply with renumeration laws, or similar without this service, and it is almost certain that every major company or firm does exactly the same thing.

It works on an individual level too - that's what consolidating a loan is, or consolidating bills, and many people choose to pay for bills from a credit account that they monitor and pay off with their own renumeration, especially if they are paid out of the normal "month end" system that utilities companies tend to accept as standard. As for that, who pays for utilities before you pay your bills? Well, they take a loan, and pay off their loan with your bill. The problem with all of this is that some people want money up front (such as suppliers), and some can only ask for payment once a product has been delivered (utilities, services, even things like computer games and movies). To bridge that gap, credit exists.

My recommendation of "£10 a month" won't give you an excellent rating, but it gives these guys an idea of your responsibility, and will get you off that dreaded 0 mark. You obviously don't have to take it, but you would have to live in the middle of nowhere nowadays while earning a great deal in order to buy a house or car without credit being involved. That's a problem sure enough, but it's definitely not one that fiscal conservatism/capitalism would ever solve. Personally, I don't have a massive problem with it, the system works when people are responsible.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
I know people who work in the entertainment industry, and they get this all the time from jealous people who overestimate how much they get paid and underestimate the amount of work they put in...

To be honest, for many artists their art doesn't pay enough, so they need another job to pay the bills. Still, it's a job, if not necessarily a well-paying one.
 

Aramis Night

New member
Mar 31, 2013
535
0
0
Verlander said:
Aramis Night said:
Verlander said:
Aramis Night said:
Gilhelmi said:
Aramis Night said:
snip
I'm not in debt to anyone for anything(something credit agencies seem to despise. Whenever they run a background check on my credit it comes out with a bad credit score because its blank). I live within my means and have been given no handouts, or benefits of any kind.
snip
I am bugging my congressmen and representatives, to pass legislation to automatically give good credit points to people every year they do not have debt. Trying to get others to join me.

I am thinking about getting more involved in politics just to bug people to fix problems like this. It is good too see other fiscal conservatives out there (Note: I said FISCAL, just nipping the dozen people hating on me for saying the "C" word)
I would love it if my lack of debt would reflect well on my credit score. But i don't think that passing laws is the answer. It just shows that credit scores are less of an indication of risk and more an indication of potential profit for lending agencies. If you do not have debt and are driven to stay debt free, than any lenders you deal with don't stand to make much money on interest dealing with you and have no incentive to do so.

One solution i would like to see is credit scores being information beyond the reach of any businesses that are not lenders and only with your permission to obtain a loan or credit. Living within your means could in some fields actually cost you promotions because some employers do credit checks.

Oh and don't worry. I'm not offended by the notion of being related to fiscal conservatism. My positions are varied, but i'll admit that fiscal conservatives have a lot of good points. I'll take that as a compliment :)
The "bad credit rating" is more to do with the fact you can't consistently prove that you can pay back within your means, rather than profit making. Some people who massively borrow can have a great credit rating, as can people who borrow very little - the rating isn't dependent on size of debt, or potential profit, but the risk of you taking out a first time loan and never being able to pay it back because you're not used to it (or you already have allocated your monthly renumeration, like salary).

A really simple way to boost your credit rating would be to get a minimal charge credit card and spend maybe £10 or so a month on it, paying the debt off immediately so it doesn't accrue any interest. As credit rating systems are mostly automated, this will begin to eventually give you a great rating as a reliable lender. It's easier said than done though, and don't use the credit card for anything more than this - those things are also the easiest way to get a bad credit rating through abuse of the card. It's far too tempting when you are stuck for money or in an awkward situation to use them beyond what you can safely pay back
You're actually making my point. People who can't live within their means constantly have to borrow money or live on credit. The fact that people who massively borrow can have great credit scores illustrates just how profit based the credit score system is. If they were actually good at allocating their funds properly, they would not need to borrow money. You can slip further and further into debt and your level of inability to live within your means and to pay back your debts will be masked by being offered increased credit limits or transferring debt to different lenders/cards without ever actually having to pay off the balance of previous debts.

The fact that your solution is simply another method of manipulating the system shows just how broken the credit rating system is. Aside from obtaining a credit score, what possible reason can one have to keep a debt balance of $10 when they don't need to be in debt? As it is, the credit rating system lumps together the most financially responsible with those who are the least financially responsible.

For myself, being without debt is a matter of honour. I know its a concept unfamiliar to most. Carrying debt should not be normal, as it is for most people now. Holding onto debt is irresponsible.
I wasn't exactly disputing your point, just making a friendly contribution :)

The fact remains though that borrowing should never be about being able to support yourself, and is unsustainable if you try. That's why the credit ratings system exists. If you have a large amount borrowed, it doesn't mean that you are surviving on that, it means you are using a financial system to support your activities, possibly even in a way that benefits you.

Here's a brief, casual friendly explanation (I hope). I work for a UK based international firm - to give you a scale, despite being UK based, we are one of the top 5 largest privately owned businesses in the US. Our net revenue at the end of the 2012 fiscal year was over $30Bn. We are big. We borrow insane quantities of money each month. Why? To pay wages. Every member of our firm is paid out of a credit agreement by a financial services company, because the payment is reliable and on time (whereas clients paying our bills may not be). The speed in which our bills are paid reduces the interest we pay, and we factor in this provision when creating our bills, but the important thing is that we pay our staff efficiently, we comply with local laws, we pay our taxes and so on. We are not in any danger of being bankrupt anytime soon (even though we pay $millions per month interest from overdue patyments from our clients). We have a very good credit rating. We would not be able to comply with renumeration laws, or similar without this service, and it is almost certain that every major company or firm does exactly the same thing.

It works on an individual level too - that's what consolidating a loan is, or consolidating bills, and many people choose to pay for bills from a credit account that they monitor and pay off with their own renumeration, especially if they are paid out of the normal "month end" system that utilities companies tend to accept as standard. As for that, who pays for utilities before you pay your bills? Well, they take a loan, and pay off their loan with your bill. The problem with all of this is that some people want money up front (such as suppliers), and some can only ask for payment once a product has been delivered (utilities, services, even things like computer games and movies). To bridge that gap, credit exists.

My recommendation of "£10 a month" won't give you an excellent rating, but it gives these guys an idea of your responsibility, and will get you off that dreaded 0 mark. You obviously don't have to take it, but you would have to live in the middle of nowhere nowadays while earning a great deal in order to buy a house or car without credit being involved. That's a problem sure enough, but it's definitely not one that fiscal conservatism/capitalism would ever solve. Personally, I don't have a massive problem with it, the system works when people are responsible.
The thing is in the beginning you make the point that borrowing should not be about supporting yourself, and then you turn around and illustrate how that is exactly what it requires for your company to exist. Your company cannot exist without borrowing money from elsewhere. If the source of your borrowed funds was to disappear and you were unable to replace it, you would be out of a job. I work for a small business. By contrast, the company i work for operates with a capital surplus to keep it from ever having to borrow money.

Your example of how month end payment works in terms of utilities falls flat when you consider that utility companies often ask for a deposit up front, much like real estate and rentals, before any service is provided. Being unable to keep a business/lifestyle going without resorting to debt is not responsible. The idea that it could be seen this way is reckless.

You say the system works when people are responsible. That may be true in theory. But people are not responsible. At least not the vast majority of them. You need only look around at the world we live in to see the evidence everywhere. When you incentivize greed and encourage cavalier attitudes towards debt, people get even less responsible. Credit scores do not give any incentive toward responsibility. They just give people reasons to game the system by playing games with $10 a month debts. On the other side they encourage usery and parasitism by lenders and borrowers.

On the other hand i also believe that declaring bankruptcy and only keeping limited credit records should be done away with. If you owe money, you owe money. period. If your paying off debts when your 60 that you accrued when you were 18, too bad. Should have made better life choices. Borrowing should never be taken lightly and the consequences should never simply be waited out. I'm just tired of seeing blatant irresponsibility passed over as acceptable or ok on either side.
 

Aramis Night

New member
Mar 31, 2013
535
0
0
Lieju said:
I know people who work in the entertainment industry, and they get this all the time from jealous people who overestimate how much they get paid and underestimate the amount of work they put in...

To be honest, for many artists their art doesn't pay enough, so they need another job to pay the bills. Still, it's a job, if not necessarily a well-paying one.
This is so true. People have seen me on various shows and ask me about it later. They actually believe i'm making bank on it. What gets me is the people who complain about it only having been there for less than 8 hrs. Some will start complaining at hour 2! I think to myself how anyone can do my job and it's the easiest job in the world but many of the others treat it like its just one big chore that they are so put off by. I'm usually somewhat happy to be there(until somewhere in hour 12-16). I guess the fact that i enjoy it makes all the difference. So many others seem to think its hard.
 

Suave Charlie

Pleasant Bastard
Sep 23, 2009
215
0
0
My girlfriend and mother have only just come to terms with what I do after 7 months of making £200 a week for the first 3 months as I did it as a hobby, and then £300+ a week since then. All working from home from my laptop, but because I didn't have to wear a suit or uniform or commute, it clearly wasn't a real job.
Never been happier than hearing that a guy who bragged about having a degree classified higher than mine was still on the dole after 6 months out of uni.

If it pays and you enjoy it, that makes it so much more satisfying when you become successful and the negativity mysteriously disappears.
 

Cheesepower5

New member
Dec 21, 2009
1,142
0
0
People tend to say shit to feel like they have something that makes above others. Me, I go around vaguely implying that I don't say shit to feel above others. Not like you ignorant swine.


;D
 

Ambitiousmould

Why does it say I'm premium now?
Apr 22, 2012
447
0
0
Probably been said but "Find a job you love, and you'll never work a day in your life". It doesn't have to involve hard work to be a job, I do a paper route, and get told to get a real job, but I'm like "why? this is easier, earns me enough for now, and still leaves loads of time to study for A-levels".

Something that isn't a real job in my mind would be an intergalactic human resources ninja, not yet anyway...
 

Jedi-Hunter4

New member
Mar 20, 2012
195
0
0
Alandoril said:
Well, going by the impression I get from game developers they certainly seem to think that writing isn't a real job.

Currently I work in a pharmacy dispensing medication to people who need it to control problematic conditions, yet I earn £6000 a year whilst someone who kicks a ball around a field can earn £600,000 a week. Not saying I should earn that much because no one, no matter what they do, should. But it is evidence that capitalism is entirely broken.
Supply and demand, there's only a few people in the world who can kick a ball that good. Now days sports players aren't often actually really being paid for their ability's out right in terms of the business model. They are paid for how many eyes they can bring to their attention and the kit they are wearing, whether that is because of how good a player they are and the success and consequent media attention(Messi) or how famous they are (David Beckham). The money only comes in that heavy because of how famous sports people are these days, 60 years ago Football in England was just as popular if not more than it is today, but they got paid around the average wage because there was no intensive advertising like today.

If you can figure out how to get millions of people to watch you, you can earn ridiculous money as well, that's why capitalism is fair to me.
 

Korolev

No Time Like the Present
Jul 4, 2008
1,853
0
0
Anything's a job so long as you get paid freely for whatever it is you do. Artists and singers have jobs because they create art which pleases people. Sure, art and songs might not have any industrial worth - you can't use art and songs to make houses, BUT art and music help make life worth living - and good art and music are difficult to produce, so yeah, artists and singers have "real" jobs - they provide entertainment, and that is an essential part of life.

I have had religious people (Christian Scientists) say that doctors don't really do anything and that it is all "God's power" that helps heal people. As a medical student, I am affronted by this, but hey, if that's what they want to believe, so be it. If they don't want to go to a Hospital when they get cancer, and if they want to try to pray their cancer way, or pray their infection away, or pray their heart failure away, by all means.... they're welcome to do that. It's no skin off my back.
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
Aramis Night said:
Gilhelmi said:
Aramis Night said:
snip
I'm not in debt to anyone for anything(something credit agencies seem to despise. Whenever they run a background check on my credit it comes out with a bad credit score because its blank). I live within my means and have been given no handouts, or benefits of any kind.
snip
I am bugging my congressmen and representatives, to pass legislation to automatically give good credit points to people every year they do not have debt. Trying to get others to join me.

I am thinking about getting more involved in politics just to bug people to fix problems like this. It is good too see other fiscal conservatives out there (Note: I said FISCAL, just nipping the dozen people hating on me for saying the "C" word)
I would love it if my lack of debt would reflect well on my credit score. But i don't think that passing laws is the answer. It just shows that credit scores are less of an indication of risk and more an indication of potential profit for lending agencies. If you do not have debt and are driven to stay debt free, than any lenders you deal with don't stand to make much money on interest dealing with you and have no incentive to do so.

One solution i would like to see is credit scores being information beyond the reach of any businesses that are not lenders and only with your permission to obtain a loan or credit. Living within your means could in some fields actually cost you promotions because some employers do credit checks.

Oh and don't worry. I'm not offended by the notion of being related to fiscal conservatism. My positions are varied, but i'll admit that fiscal conservatives have a lot of good points. I'll take that as a compliment :)
That is good. Too many people hear Conservative and immediately assume the far right people. I call myself a moderate conservative because of my view on fiscal politics.

I would be glad to see only finical institutions being the only ones too see a credit score. That would help as well. Thing is if we do not pass a law, then nothing will change because the businesses have no incentive to stop doing what they are doing.
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
imahobbit4062 said:
Akichi Daikashima said:
prowll said:
Would you expect to pay 10$ for a Van Gogh?
Yes, back when he was alive(fact!)

I can't even understand exactly how a person can even say this; barely anyone wants to work in a factory/involving manual labour: the people I know/have met say that they never want to work in something involving physical labour, even those whose jobs have them working in such a manner.

Also, you don't need me to tell you that you should never listen to asshats that have criteria for how "real" an occupation is.

Tell them to fuck off to their real job/tell them that you can't hear them over your paycheck.
Can't understand people who want to do physical labour? Really? I'd prefer physical labour over half the jobs the people on this site would choose.
I did mention that it is out of the pool of people that I know (myself included).

To each their own, I did not mean any offense.

OT: As a great saying goes:

"Opinions are like dicks: everyone has them, but there's no need to shove them down people's throats"

Which is what the "real job" guy did to the OP.
 

JemothSkarii

Thanks!
Nov 9, 2010
1,169
0
0
Akichi Daikashima said:
As a great saying goes:

"Opinions are like dicks: everyone has them, but there's no need to shove them down people's throats"

Which is what the "real job" guy did to the OP.
Well, you can if you're a prostitute...or like...I dunno, professional mouth inseminater. Dicks, that is. Opinions for money is Politics.

OT: A 'real job' is something which allows you to earn money for doing something that isn't illegal in my opinion. Of course this comes from a NEET whose last job was effectively giving the organisation a good rep ("We've never had a disabled employee before, so you'll be a good example to the community of what we do"). That said, I need to get a "real job" soon or I'll sink into self pity.
 

caselj01

New member
Jun 8, 2010
139
0
0
I kind of think of a real job as a job that you want to do indefinitely, rather than just a temporary job that you do to earn some extra money or to get to some other job. For example back in my uni days I did some work as a labourer one summer holiday, and also did some high school tutoring. Even though both of those jobs paid alright and labouring was 20-40 hrs a week, I don't consider either of them "real" jobs because I was only doing it to get some money so that I could get to my "real" job once I finished uni.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
All right, here's one for you. Is being a mother or a house wife a "real job"? I ask because a lot of people consider them not to be, despite involving a great deal of work that traditionally would have been paid for, if delegated to a professional nanny, cook or cleaner (all of which are definitely real jobs).

I don't plan on turning it into a feminist debate or anything, I'm just making the point that society has some very arbitrary ideas as to what counts as real work. Often the only qualifier is "do you get paid for it?", which totally flies in the face of anyone who works pro bono, voluntarily, or in a non-traditional role.