A job is generally defined as a piece of work or labor, especially if it a specific task handled by an individual as part of a routine in ones occupation, for an agreed price. A good job is in many ways described depending on one’s own background, economists for example define good jobs as those, which pay a reasonable minimum and include pension benefits as well as healthcare.
In today’s world, altering of the good and bad jobs picture occurs in three ways. Firstly, the business press, including other scholars, has opposed the notion known to many that a good job is a stable job and instead propose that good jobs are breaks or stops, often short, in an upward projecting career. Secondly, people have come to place their value on issues including fulfillment on the job, autonomy and on finding the balance between family and work, therefore reducing the dominance of the bread and butter issues including wage levels. Thirdly and most important is that we can no longer describe jobs as vestigial any longer. They now form a central and growing portion of the employment in the United States (Ronald, 263)
The last three generations have come to see a drastic change in the system mechanisms of who gets which job, the system that allocates occupations or ‘the distribution of life’s chances’ in the existing societies. Foremost, changes in our school system, a big increase in the provision of upper and tertiary education, increased meritocracy, greater in some societies than in the others in the extent in which they allocate educational opportunities by the measurement of learning ability other than the ability of parents to pay. Secondly, a source and as a consequence of the egalitarianism mentioned as well as the growth of mass media has led to an increase of the homogeneity of peoples aspirations. This leads to an increase on the convergent idea of a ‘good job’ and increasingly convergent hopes and expectation of chances of getting one. Thirdly, the shift from ‘contest mobility’ through the labor market. This succeeds by maneuvering through the school system, which is the increase in the importance of academic qualifications (Chris, 72).
Fourthly, a steady rise in the educational level considered mandatory jobs. A recent study shows ‘human capital’ upgrading after the increase in graduates in the steel industries. The last trend is the shift of the occupational structure. Some jobs require advanced training offered in universities other than mere talent. These include engineering, medicine and social services, rather more are the jobs that require language skills of sales managers and advertisers or managerial jobs requiring judgment and quickness of mind and an ability to reason logically as well as verbal exposition (Chris, 72).
According to a labor markets segmentation perspective, there are particular sets of governing rules and sets of characteristics tend to occur together. This factor points to qualitative distinctions defining good and bad jobs. The labor market segmentation links social networks to production networks of supply and recruitment. A neoclassic perspective, adopts a ‘hedonic’ view to a job quality. There is no reason one should expect for a job, which considered bad in one way would be bad as well in other ways. The theory of compensating differentials states that higher wages offset undesirable aspects of a job. Empirical research has left the choice between hedonic and segmented versions of job qualities at a standoff (Peter, 154).
Other than pay, pension benefits, and health insurance are not the only factors that can determine whether a job is good or bad. Other important features of a good job include the work schedule or hours flexibility. Part time employment should be available. The degree of job security; the employees should be guaranteed of permanent jobs without being laid off without any warnings. The amount paid on a vacation or sick leave, the family-friendly policies and the jobs health and safety protections. Mobility; good jobs should offer upward mobility over time in terms of their earnings. Control over the work process; employee’s value controlling their work process highly. Their move from frequent supervision to absolutely no supervision should be included gradually in their jobs (Ronald, 263). The March CPS is a survey suited to measure job quality over a period. To qualify as a good job according to this analysis, a job should pay at least $16.50 per hour. A ‘good job’ must offer employer-provided health insurance for the employees meaning paid at least in part by their employer. In addition, a good job must also provide a pension plan. The ideal measure of a pension plan would consider the expected level of retirement income, the vesting period, and the amount of risk borne by the worker. We can therefore define a ‘bad job’ as a job that fails to match the above criteria that defined a ‘good job’ (Ronald, 264).
Three important areas of economic change could help explain these trends in job quality. First is sped up technological change in itself. Technological change has spurred job redefinition and displacement as well as playing a role in creating new job openings for competition. The second major change is increased fluidity and sharpness of competition. Globalization is a good representative of one of the aspects of competition. Acceleration, technological change, deregulation, and the increased impact of the shareholders impatience, through threatened or accrual buyouts contributed to competition as well diminishing formerly comfortable oligopolies therefore opening new industries to existing competition (Sanford, 132).
Conclusion
The concern of the decrease of good jobs began in the 1970s with the decline in real wages and accelerated in the early 1880s. Overall job insecurity remains high but addressing the issues mentioned would improve job security for American citizens, as well as their general lifestyle with improved healthcare benefits. This would also improve the country’s economy.
Works Cited
Chris, Tilly. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Good and Bad Jobs in the United States at the
Millennium,” Russell Sage Foundation. 1996.
Peter, Cappelli. “Career Jobs are Dead”, California Management Review, 42, 1. (1999): 147- 167.Web.
Ronald, Dore. “Good Jobs, Bad Jobs, and No Jobs,” Industrial Relations Journal, 28, 4. 1997: 262-268.Web.
Sanford, Jacoby. “Are Career Jobs Headed for Extinction?” California Management Review, 42, 1. (1999): 123-145.Web.
