Stacking Shelves Is More Important Than Geology

Ian Duncan Smith believes that stacking shelves is more important than having a degree. He might just be right when he says:

"The next time somebody goes in - those smart people who say there's something wrong with this - they go into their supermarket, ask themselves this simple question, when they can't find the food they want on the shelves, who is more important - them, the geologist, or the person who stacked the shelves?"

So if stacking shelves is so important, why do you get paid a pittance for it...if you get paid at all that is.

Full story here www.bbc.co.uk...

The question I propose is, the jobs that we tend not to want to do can be very important for society to run smoothly. So, should we frown upon these types of roles, and does IDS have a point? Maybe we should get school kids to do this sort of work for free, not to gain experience per se, but to gain respect for work ethics.

Simple supply and demand.

When suddenly only a few people are born with arms, only then will they be paid well for stacking shelves.

Things would go to hell even quicker if the cleaners weren't around. Some would be going outside to relieve themselves. No joke. I'm agreeing 100%.

Well pay is usually contingent on the amound of skill required to do the job. Supposedly anyways.

You can learn how to stack a shelf in minutes whereas learning about geology takes years of study.

We can argue perspectives all day if we like, the reality is that every role is equally as important to the smooth running and advancement of society. There is objectively no "more important" role from binman to doctor.

What there is however, is a skill gradient from binman to doctor.

If it takes a shelf stacker a week to learn how to do his job then why should he be paid as much as a geologist, when it takes the geologist years to learn how to do his job?

reply to post by Hopechest


So you're saying that geologists could learn to stack shelves quickly then. I agree. But the fact still remains, how do they get their food? Someone has to do the grunt work. It seems like the cruddiest jobs also get the crappiest pay. Plumbers excluded. I've been a cleaner. That's not pleasant work but it IS essential.

reply to post by intrepid


If a geologist had no incentive to invest 2 years worth of A-Levels, 3 or 4 years of university and several years of on the job training, why would he do it when he could just leave school at 16 and stack shelves for the same money?

reply to post by Hopechest


Exactly it's not rocket science to stack shelves, but it is an equally important role in society. If we take out one section of workers from our society, then the whole system collapses.

Who gets more pay?
The shelf stacker, or
The guy who builds a robot to stack the shelves.

High skill requires high training so earns a higher reward.

the pay shouldn't be based on skill training.

it should be based on how that skill benefits society.

how do geologists benefit society in the same way a shelf stackers does.

who's more in demand?

I've never needed a geologist in my life...but I've needed the grocery clerk many times ..to grab higher items off the shelf, to go check back for more stock etc.

I think the grocery clerk is more valuable to society and thus be paid more.

geology is more of a hobby. than a supply/demand thing.

the service industry should be paid more because without them ..the business, hence society would go to the crapper. AND the geologist would not be able to save it.

reply to post by DAZ21


No they are not equal.

Equality is based upon what the impact of losing this function in society would have. Obviously losing a person who stacks shelves would have less of an impact than say a doctor. Its also based on how long it takes you to train another person to fill that role.

Shelf stacker does not take long but a doctor does, therefore not all roles are equal.

reply to post by Dispo


Fact of the matter is that he probably is. Sciences like that are pretty much dependent on teaching, preferably at a uni, or on grants. That's not a lot. Not 6 figures. What I mean is why does the guy doing the menial labor get minimum wage? Should be better.

Originally posted by Beartracker16
Who gets more pay?
The shelf stacker, or
The guy who builds a robot to stack the shelves.

High skill requires high training so earns a higher reward.

The guy who invents the robot isn't very smart if he makes all the human shelf stackers redundant, is he?

reply to post by infowarrior9970


If everyone was busy stacking shelves for you, who would develop the theory of plate tectonics and formulate earthquake policy, find and extract oil for you to drive to the store, prevent entire towns falling in to the sea etc etc etc.

Just because you personally can't think of a use for something beyond your immediate tangible needs, doesn't mean those uses don't exist.

And as I said, if someone could leave school at 16 and earn more than they would by staying in education until they're 25, why would anyone stay in education?

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by DAZ21

 

No they are not equal.

Equality is based upon what the impact of losing this function in society would have. Obviously losing a person who stacks shelves would have less of an impact than say a doctor. Its also based on how long it takes you to train another person to fill that role.

Shelf stacker does not take long but a doctor does, therefore not all roles are equal.

edit on 17-2-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)

You say this but some of the smartest people I have known wouldn't be able to tie their own shoes.

Shelf stacking requires common sense, and I'm afraid not everyone is born with that.

reply to post by intrepid


Because the minimum wage is the lowest payable wage, and shelf stacking is the lowest employable skill.

Geologists are millionaires these days, I've worked with several who jet in and out of Dubai (now China) weekly on corporate money because they work with oil.

reply to post by DAZ21


True, but more people are born with common sense than are born with the drive and ability to become a doctor. It's statistics.

reply to post by infowarrior9970


Pay is based upon nothing more than how replaceable a person is. Why are medical doctors paid more than the janitor who sweeps the floors? Simple, the janitor is easily replaced with some other person who will do the work for a low amount of money.

But this topic isnt about pay, it is about the "importance" of the various careers around. If you look at this then yes, the most basic jobs are the most essential. But they are also the easiest to find new help and workers for, thus they are the lowest paid.

Until these ignorant idiots are willing to resign their highly paid jobs, paid for by the tax payers, and practice what they preach and stack shelves, what they say is irrelevant. They always put down everyone, yet never lead by example.

The issue with this situation was never to do with being too good for the job. The issue was working for significantly less than the minimum wage, funded by the tax payers, while profit making corporations got FREE LABOUR. She also already had a voluntary job, she was not all take, she was giving back.

She had a very real case, and rightfully won it. The fact the government have changed the goal posts again since this ruling shows what nasty, evil, manipulative #s they really are. They will rob us all of everything we have given half the chance, and it is only due to the consciences of the few remaining people with integrity that we are not living in total poverty.

reply to post by DAZ21


whats funny about all this is i stacked shelfs for some years in my life, and watched people come and go out the job. some people simply cant do it, some people are masters at it. i was in a high volume store(food) i learned how to cut with both hands at once thus doubling my cutting rate, while at the same time some people would end up cutting themselves with one blade and quitting soon after or getting fired for being to slow. maybe those people went on to be geologists?