I don't understand why people believe this list holds any water at all. It seems that no one has looked into the group that has done this analysis nor have they looked into the methodology of what determines "best" and "worst".
The company who determined this jobs list is CareerCast.com. If you read the about us section on Career Cast you'll find that they're an online classified advertising company. They're business is classified advertising online for job positions. Not only is the CareerCast site littered with ads but if you follow the "JobsRated.com" site link to the Job rating list, it just redirects to CareerCast.com. My guess is that these numerically-based, spreadsheet-calculation list posts are merely meant to pull traffic to their site from The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal holds the eyes of tons of traffic, traffic who are potentially looking to hire new people. If that traffic sees "CareerCast.com" and assumes credibility because WSJ posted the article, then boom! New money for Career Cast. Anyways, that's beside the point...
Now to methodology:
CareerCast lists their 5 criteria for determining position on the list:
Environment, Income, Employment Outlook, Physical Demands and Stress
You can see their explanation of methodology HERE.
Let's look at this:
1) Environment is measured numerically in two categories:
Physically and Emotionally.
In both instances an undisclosed group [RED FLAG] is rating facets of Physical and Emotional Environment on a numerical basis where Physical Environment equals Emotional Environment [RED FLAG]. Ranking pre-supposed Physical and Emotional Environmental standards is ridiculous when most of their standards are entirely subjective! "Contact with the Public" is considered an Emotional Environment standard... however some would find this good and some bad. "Degree of Competitiveness" is also on the standards list. Most would agree competition is actually good UP TO A POINT... but this list either assumes only negative influence or that all competition is bad. Physically, standards such as "Stamina Needed" and "Necessary Energy" aren't defined at all... I bet there are programmers who go home more tired than carpenters and vice versa because their stamina and energy come from different places. Would you want a job where you're so physically tired that when you come home you fall asleep, or a job where you're so mentally drained, all you want to do is watch TV? What is worst? Who decides that? It's subjective, and to measure it numerically is ridiculous. [FLAG] [FLAG] [FLAG]
2) Income
Do I really need to say this? Predicting Income and Growth Potential in a market where your job could literally be gone the next day is insane.
Have we somewhat stabilized economically? Yes.
Are we out of the forest yet? Hell No.
Will we be by the end of the year? Do YOU think so? I don't... and guess what, neither does any of the financial forecasters, because they can't accurately predict future economic stability as it is! [FLAG]
Don't believe me? Check out the astonishing Act 5 of a recent episode of This American Life HERE where the "Planet Money" team interview some of the world's leading economic forecasters who admit that they barely understand what happened to the economy two years ago, much less be able to predict what's going to happen this year.
We can partially assume Income as an average of what people are being paid now, but we have no idea about Growth Potential in today's world [FLAG].
3) Employment Outlook
See "2) Income".
But honestly people, our own government can't keep straight unemployment records because once someone runs out of unemployment benefits they are removed from the unemployment rolls. Are supposed "improving job market" is really just their calculations gradually kicking off the "dead weight" of all the people who lost their jobs and are still unemployed but have been unemployed for so long that they no longer collect benefits. We can't properly predict Employment Outlook for receiving jobs when we don't even fully realize how many people are STILL unemployed. [RED FLAG]
4) Physical Demands
"...we awarded higher scores to jobs with greater Physical Demands and lower scores to jobs with lesser demands. "
So, if you are in a predominantly physical labor job, you score higher and are ranked worse. [FLAG] So the more sedentary you are, the better job you are in... Wait, What?! [FLAG] While sitting is nice, its what got us into the overweight mess that America is in right now. Just because I sit at my job does not make my job better. I could be pushing paper all day on my butt and then "go postal" (see the origin of that phrase). In contrast, I could be building homes for disaster victims all day and while physically I'm beat, I'm mentally and spiritually rewarded from the work I do for others. Physical work as a factor of "best" and "worst"? Come on. [FLAG]
5) Stress
The most glaring thing here is how physicality in a job again nets the most points which raise your score, giving you a "worse" job. [DOUBLE FLAG] But in addition, the list of 21 Stress Factors are mostly subjective... Quotas, Deadlines, Meeting the Public, Initiative Required, Advocacy, Win or Lose Situations... these are all things that ARE GREAT for a worker. These are things that make a job fulfilling because they are things to measure achievement from. If I had no deadlines, never Won, never needed any initiative, and never was asked to help someone else I would have a wholly UNREWARDING job. Now note, that may be different for others, but the point is that this list can't measure rewarding aspects of a job because what's rewarding is subjective and can't be measured by numbers.
I think the biggest proof in my suppositions here are in the results given.
Number 1 job: Actuary.
Actuary.
A risk assessor who's job is primarily numbers and statistics concerning death and tragedy. Sure he sits back, punches number and makes the big money... but how is that THE BEST? How many actuaries have a rewarding and fulfilling job? and how would anyone measure that? Good luck, maybe you should get a software programmer, seeing as they're number 2 on the list. I bet they all would love to do it.
Conclusion:
The truth is that having the "best" job isn't measured by the amount of physical work you do, whether you have to "have initiative", or even how much money you make... the "best" job comes from your own definition of fulfillment and reward. Why people are even giving these lists the time of day is beyond me. As an industrial designer, I noted that our position fell from #9 last year to #35 this year... does that mean I should have a worse job? I don't. I'm in a better job, a more fulfilling and rewarding job with more deadlines, quotas, and win/lose situations, but I am loving every minute of it. What gives?
I'm sure there are Actuaries, Software Developers, and Computer Systems Analysts who hate their job. They probably feel under-utilized and could be buried by bureaucracy of the company they work for and be in threat of losing their job due to an economy out of their control... But hey, on this list they rank pretty high.
THEY should be the happy ones.
Let's look at this:
1) Environment is measured numerically in two categories:
Physically and Emotionally.
In both instances an undisclosed group [RED FLAG] is rating facets of Physical and Emotional Environment on a numerical basis where Physical Environment equals Emotional Environment [RED FLAG]. Ranking pre-supposed Physical and Emotional Environmental standards is ridiculous when most of their standards are entirely subjective! "Contact with the Public" is considered an Emotional Environment standard... however some would find this good and some bad. "Degree of Competitiveness" is also on the standards list. Most would agree competition is actually good UP TO A POINT... but this list either assumes only negative influence or that all competition is bad. Physically, standards such as "Stamina Needed" and "Necessary Energy" aren't defined at all... I bet there are programmers who go home more tired than carpenters and vice versa because their stamina and energy come from different places. Would you want a job where you're so physically tired that when you come home you fall asleep, or a job where you're so mentally drained, all you want to do is watch TV? What is worst? Who decides that? It's subjective, and to measure it numerically is ridiculous. [FLAG] [FLAG] [FLAG]
2) Income
Do I really need to say this? Predicting Income and Growth Potential in a market where your job could literally be gone the next day is insane.
Have we somewhat stabilized economically? Yes.
Are we out of the forest yet? Hell No.
Will we be by the end of the year? Do YOU think so? I don't... and guess what, neither does any of the financial forecasters, because they can't accurately predict future economic stability as it is! [FLAG]
Don't believe me? Check out the astonishing Act 5 of a recent episode of This American Life HERE where the "Planet Money" team interview some of the world's leading economic forecasters who admit that they barely understand what happened to the economy two years ago, much less be able to predict what's going to happen this year.
We can partially assume Income as an average of what people are being paid now, but we have no idea about Growth Potential in today's world [FLAG].
3) Employment Outlook
See "2) Income".
But honestly people, our own government can't keep straight unemployment records because once someone runs out of unemployment benefits they are removed from the unemployment rolls. Are supposed "improving job market" is really just their calculations gradually kicking off the "dead weight" of all the people who lost their jobs and are still unemployed but have been unemployed for so long that they no longer collect benefits. We can't properly predict Employment Outlook for receiving jobs when we don't even fully realize how many people are STILL unemployed. [RED FLAG]
4) Physical Demands
"...we awarded higher scores to jobs with greater Physical Demands and lower scores to jobs with lesser demands. "
So, if you are in a predominantly physical labor job, you score higher and are ranked worse. [FLAG] So the more sedentary you are, the better job you are in... Wait, What?! [FLAG] While sitting is nice, its what got us into the overweight mess that America is in right now. Just because I sit at my job does not make my job better. I could be pushing paper all day on my butt and then "go postal" (see the origin of that phrase). In contrast, I could be building homes for disaster victims all day and while physically I'm beat, I'm mentally and spiritually rewarded from the work I do for others. Physical work as a factor of "best" and "worst"? Come on. [FLAG]
5) Stress
The most glaring thing here is how physicality in a job again nets the most points which raise your score, giving you a "worse" job. [DOUBLE FLAG] But in addition, the list of 21 Stress Factors are mostly subjective... Quotas, Deadlines, Meeting the Public, Initiative Required, Advocacy, Win or Lose Situations... these are all things that ARE GREAT for a worker. These are things that make a job fulfilling because they are things to measure achievement from. If I had no deadlines, never Won, never needed any initiative, and never was asked to help someone else I would have a wholly UNREWARDING job. Now note, that may be different for others, but the point is that this list can't measure rewarding aspects of a job because what's rewarding is subjective and can't be measured by numbers.
I think the biggest proof in my suppositions here are in the results given.
Number 1 job: Actuary.
Actuary.
A risk assessor who's job is primarily numbers and statistics concerning death and tragedy. Sure he sits back, punches number and makes the big money... but how is that THE BEST? How many actuaries have a rewarding and fulfilling job? and how would anyone measure that? Good luck, maybe you should get a software programmer, seeing as they're number 2 on the list. I bet they all would love to do it.
Conclusion:
The truth is that having the "best" job isn't measured by the amount of physical work you do, whether you have to "have initiative", or even how much money you make... the "best" job comes from your own definition of fulfillment and reward. Why people are even giving these lists the time of day is beyond me. As an industrial designer, I noted that our position fell from #9 last year to #35 this year... does that mean I should have a worse job? I don't. I'm in a better job, a more fulfilling and rewarding job with more deadlines, quotas, and win/lose situations, but I am loving every minute of it. What gives?
I'm sure there are Actuaries, Software Developers, and Computer Systems Analysts who hate their job. They probably feel under-utilized and could be buried by bureaucracy of the company they work for and be in threat of losing their job due to an economy out of their control... But hey, on this list they rank pretty high.
THEY should be the happy ones.
0 comments:
Post a Comment