CDZ Are you a laborer?

[tinynascarfan]

I consider myself a working man, I am a truck driver, I consider it a lazy man's job. Not because it's easy work, but because I'm not on my feet a lot, and most of my work is done while I'm on my rear, but some physical labor is involved.

I don't consider anyone who works on a computer all day to be a laborer. I consider them a thinker, and good for them, if you can make a living working smarter, not harder, I'm all for that.

I consider mechanics, and construction workers, and janitors, and teachers, and anyone who does actual physical labor in their jobs to be a laborer.

So, are you a laborer, or a thinker? and believe me, typing is not labor, if it was, I wouldn't be on a computer doing it right now.

 

[jwoodie]

As 320 would say, false dichotomy.

 

[320 Years of History]

Hmm....not sure how to answer you....you would probably not call me a laborer.

My work occurs on my feet sometimes and sitting down -- at times before a computer, at times not -- sometimes. The most important part of my work happens on my feet, but the aspects of it that happen while I'm seated are nonetheless indispensable to being good at my job.

I do little that's more physically involving than would a teacher. I travel a lot and strictly speaking, I'm paid to sit on my butt to get from place to place because I'm not paid hourly, but I use that time to do a large share of my work that requires a computer, and I bill my clients for that time when the work pertains to their contract(s). I spend a lot of actual hours traveling, but there's no way I consider mine a lazy man's job.

I wonder how a surgeon would answer your question. Their work is very physical although they also spend time on the computer and interacting with patients prior to and/or after performing surgery. Ditto artists, musicians, singers, some engineers, and a host of other types of work.

I wonder too if by "thinking" and "laboring" the distinction you are getting at is that of administrative work versus other kinds of work. There's no way around some jobs' having a fair share of "administrivia," but by the same token, there are lots of administrative jobs that basically require one to repetitively "put a square peg in a square hole" and contacting the supervisor when a "non-square peg" presents itself, thus calling for little thinking beyond figuring out how long before one's work day is done. Yet, it appears you'd call some of those workers "thinkers." I, on the other hand, have observed that some of the folks I've met who have those kinds of jobs couldn't and won't try to think their way out of a paper bag with a hole in both ends.

"Working man," "thinking job," "laboring job," "lazy man's job"...they all strike me as highly subjective labels as well as labels that have little to no mutual exclusivity among themselves.

 

[jwoodie]

I consider myself a working man, I am a truck driver, I consider it a lazy man's job. Not because it's easy work, but because I'm not on my feet a lot, and most of my work is done while I'm on my rear, but some physical labor is involved.

I don't consider anyone who works on a computer all day to be a laborer. I consider them a thinker, and good for them, if you can make a living working smarter, not harder, I'm all for that.

I consider mechanics, and construction workers, and janitors, and teachers, and anyone who does actual physical labor in their jobs to be a laborer.

So, are you a laborer, or a thinker? and believe me, typing is not labor, if it was, I wouldn't be on a computer doing it right now.

So is a "working man" a "laborer" or a "thinker' or either/neither? What is the significance of these labels?

 

[Wyatt earp]

I am blue collar but they pay me for what I know, not how hard I work, as long as my machines are running the maintenance manager could care less what I do.

 

[Agit8r]

Regardless of the nature of work one performs, it has the potential to be deletererious to the worker.

The potential for damage decreases the more it is on the worker's own terms--as with self employment, cooperative enterprise, etc.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I consider myself a working man, I am a truck driver, I consider it a lazy man's job. Not because it's easy work, but because I'm not on my feet a lot, and most of my work is done while I'm on my rear, but some physical labor is involved.

I don't consider anyone who works on a computer all day to be a laborer. I consider them a thinker, and good for them, if you can make a living working smarter, not harder, I'm all for that.

I consider mechanics, and construction workers, and janitors, and teachers, and anyone who does actual physical labor in their jobs to be a laborer.

So, are you a laborer, or a thinker? and believe me, typing is not labor, if it was, I wouldn't be on a computer doing it right now.

So is a "working man" a "laborer" or a "thinker' or either/neither? What is the significance of these labels?

It means a lot to some people...

 

[tinynascarfan]

As 320 would say, false dichotomy.

I don't understand how it's supposed to be a dichotomy, I had to look it up, and it means opposites.

Working with your back, and legs and arms and hands, is different than working with your brain.

Mowing a yard is much different than selling a car like a salesman, they are not opposites, just a different kind of job.

And in that lies my question. So are you wiling to answer it, or not?

 

[tinynascarfan]

Hmm....not sure how to answer you....you would probably not call me a laborer.

My work occurs on my feet sometimes and sitting down -- at times before a computer, at times not -- sometimes. The most important part of my work happens on my feet, but the aspects of it that happen while I'm seated are nonetheless indispensable to being good at my job.

I do little that's more physically involving than would a teacher. I travel a lot and strictly speaking, I'm paid to sit on my butt to get from place to place because I'm not paid hourly, but I use that time to do a large share of my work that requires a computer, and I bill my clients for that time when the work pertains to their contract(s). I spend a lot of actual hours traveling, but there's no way I consider mine a lazy man's job.

I wonder how a surgeon would answer your question. Their work is very physical although they also spend time on the computer and interacting with patients prior to and/or after performing surgery. Ditto artists, musicians, singers, some engineers, and a host of other types of work.

I wonder too if by "thinking" and "laboring" the distinction you are getting at is that of administrative work versus other kinds of work. There's no way around some jobs' having a fair share of "administrivia," but by the same token, there are lots of administrative jobs that basically require one to repetitively "put a square peg in a square hole" and contacting the supervisor when a "non-square peg" presents itself, thus calling for little thinking beyond figuring out how long before one's work day is done. Yet, it appears you'd call some of those workers "thinkers." I, on the other hand, have observed that some of the folks I've met who have those kinds of jobs couldn't and won't try to think their way out of a paper bag with a hole in both ends.

"Working man," "thinking job," "laboring job," "lazy man's job"...they all strike me as highly subjective labels as well as labels that have little to no mutual exclusivity among themselves.

I guess I am referring to jobs, that require back breaking work, long hours on your feet, and a great deal of physical labor. Even as a truck driver, I have to change gears, use my clutch, all physical work, while maintaining my focus on everything going on around me.

There is a lot of physical labor involved in many different jobs, while some jobs have little or no physical labor at all, my mother works as an insurance representative, and types a lot, is typing considered physical labor?

I know for a fact, that some mentally tough jobs, can tax you physically, just as a physically tough job can tax you mentally.

 

[tinynascarfan]

I consider myself a working man, I am a truck driver, I consider it a lazy man's job. Not because it's easy work, but because I'm not on my feet a lot, and most of my work is done while I'm on my rear, but some physical labor is involved.

I don't consider anyone who works on a computer all day to be a laborer. I consider them a thinker, and good for them, if you can make a living working smarter, not harder, I'm all for that.

I consider mechanics, and construction workers, and janitors, and teachers, and anyone who does actual physical labor in their jobs to be a laborer.

So, are you a laborer, or a thinker? and believe me, typing is not labor, if it was, I wouldn't be on a computer doing it right now.

So is a "working man" a "laborer" or a "thinker' or either/neither? What is the significance of these labels?

I consider a 'working man' to be any person who has to work to earn a living. What most people label a working man as, is a redneck. He makes his living by the sweat of his brow, and the callouses on his hands.

And there is no real significance in these labels. I just wonder who here actually does, or thinks they do, physical labor in their jobs.

Like I said, I have a lazy man's job, the extent of my physical labor is dropping and hooking a trailer, doing a pre and post trip inspection, opening doors, and cleaning out trailers. With a little truck maintenance mixed in.

 

[320 Years of History]

As 320 would say, false dichotomy.

I don't understand how it's supposed to be a dichotomy, I had to look it up, and it means opposites.

Working with your back, and legs and arms and hands, is different than working with your brain.

Mowing a yard is much different than selling a car like a salesman, they are not opposites, just a different kind of job.

And in that lies my question. So are you wiling to answer it, or not?

I'm not sure where you looked it up, but I applaud you for doing so. You may want to read the discussion of it here.

The thing that makes your options -- thinker or laborer -- a false dichotomy is that you've presented them as though they are the only two options.

After checking the content at the link I provided, you may want to peruse the list of fallacies found on the left side of that webpage. Doing so, you'll find all sorts of them -- I believe that site focuses mostly on informal fallacies, but it may also have formal ones, I don't recall. The site linked above, Logically Fallacious, is among the best one's I've found for not only does it identify the nature of the fallacies, but also it identifies exceptions to them when there are some and it explains the nuanced similarities and differences between those that seem identical. The latter two bits are rare to find.

If you are interested in understanding fallacies, I suggest you first explore informal ones because overwhelmingly the arguments one encounters re: politics and religion are inductive. To begin your inquiry, I suggest using a site like this to identify the most common informal fallacies and then examine the discussion of them found on Logically Fallacious to get a full understanding of them.

Note:

• Formal fallacy --> a logical failing found in a deductive argument or statement.
• Informal fallacy --> a logical failing found in an inductive argument or statement.

 

[tinynascarfan]

Regardless of the nature of work one performs, it has the potential to be deletererious to the worker.

The potential for damage decreases the more it is on the worker's own terms--as with self employment, cooperative enterprise, etc.

I had to look up deletererious, why not just say harmful?

And no, I don't think all work has the potential to be harmful. At least not with a little common sense. If you are going to plant a garden, and you don't take any water to drink with you, that's just stupidity, or an oversight, but you still have the opportunity to stop what you are doing and get some water, before it becomes harmful.

In your way of thinking, every little thing we do, would be considered harmful, wouldn't it, or did I miss the jist of what you are saying?

 

[tinynascarfan]

As 320 would say, false dichotomy.

I don't understand how it's supposed to be a dichotomy, I had to look it up, and it means opposites.

Working with your back, and legs and arms and hands, is different than working with your brain.

Mowing a yard is much different than selling a car like a salesman, they are not opposites, just a different kind of job.

And in that lies my question. So are you wiling to answer it, or not?

I'm not sure where you looked it up, but I applaud you for doing so. You may want to read the discussion of it here.

The thing that makes your options -- thinker or laborer -- a false dichotomy is that you've presented them as though they are the only two options.

After checking the content at the link I provided, you may want to peruse the list of fallacies found on the left side of that webpage. Doing so, you'll find all sorts of them -- I believe that site focuses mostly on informal fallacies, but it may also have formal ones, I don't recall. The site linked above, Logically Fallacious, is among the best one's I've found for not only does it identify the nature of the fallacies, but also it identifies exceptions to them when there are some and it explains the nuanced similarities and differences between those that seem identical. The latter two bits are rare to find.

If you are interested in understanding fallacies, I suggest you first explore informal ones because overwhelmingly the arguments one encounters re: politics and religion are inductive. To begin your inquiry, I suggest using a site like this to identify the most common informal fallacies and then examine the discussion of them found on Logically Fallacious to get a full understanding of them.

Note:

• Formal fallacy --> a logical failing found in a deductive argument or statement.
• Informal fallacy --> a logical failing found in an inductive argument or statement.

Most of the education I have is from real world living, not books or reading. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but there are a lot of us, who are high school dropouts, who paid our dues in the real world, and just don't understand words with more than a few syllables. And if it wasn't for spellcheck on computers, I couldn't spell syllables.

 

[320 Years of History]

Hmm....not sure how to answer you....you would probably not call me a laborer.

My work occurs on my feet sometimes and sitting down -- at times before a computer, at times not -- sometimes. The most important part of my work happens on my feet, but the aspects of it that happen while I'm seated are nonetheless indispensable to being good at my job.

I do little that's more physically involving than would a teacher. I travel a lot and strictly speaking, I'm paid to sit on my butt to get from place to place because I'm not paid hourly, but I use that time to do a large share of my work that requires a computer, and I bill my clients for that time when the work pertains to their contract(s). I spend a lot of actual hours traveling, but there's no way I consider mine a lazy man's job.

I wonder how a surgeon would answer your question. Their work is very physical although they also spend time on the computer and interacting with patients prior to and/or after performing surgery. Ditto artists, musicians, singers, some engineers, and a host of other types of work.

I wonder too if by "thinking" and "laboring" the distinction you are getting at is that of administrative work versus other kinds of work. There's no way around some jobs' having a fair share of "administrivia," but by the same token, there are lots of administrative jobs that basically require one to repetitively "put a square peg in a square hole" and contacting the supervisor when a "non-square peg" presents itself, thus calling for little thinking beyond figuring out how long before one's work day is done. Yet, it appears you'd call some of those workers "thinkers." I, on the other hand, have observed that some of the folks I've met who have those kinds of jobs couldn't and won't try to think their way out of a paper bag with a hole in both ends.

"Working man," "thinking job," "laboring job," "lazy man's job"...they all strike me as highly subjective labels as well as labels that have little to no mutual exclusivity among themselves.

I guess I am referring to jobs, that require back breaking work, long hours on your feet, and a great deal of physical labor. Even as a truck driver, I have to change gears, use my clutch, all physical work, while maintaining my focus on everything going on around me.

There is a lot of physical labor involved in many different jobs, while some jobs have little or no physical labor at all, my mother works as an insurance representative, and types a lot, is typing considered physical labor?

I know for a fact, that some mentally tough jobs, can tax you physically, just as a physically tough job can tax you mentally.

My job doesn't inherently have "back breaking" work.

Red:
To the extent that physical labor = physical working, yes, typing is physical labor, but it's not back breaking. Speak to someone who suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome, and you'll find that rather than being back breaking, typing can be arm breaking.

 

[Mr Natural]

Regardless of what you do for a living, if someone else signs your paycheck you are a laborer (aka worker).

 

[tinynascarfan]

Regardless of what you do for a living, if someone else signs your paycheck you are a laborer (aka worker).

I disagree, I cant consider Robert Downey Jr. a laborer, he works hard at his job, but he does NOT need to work. There seem to be many people, who do not need to work, who continue to work, for whatever the reason maybe.

 

[320 Years of History]

As 320 would say, false dichotomy.

I don't understand how it's supposed to be a dichotomy, I had to look it up, and it means opposites.

Working with your back, and legs and arms and hands, is different than working with your brain.

Mowing a yard is much different than selling a car like a salesman, they are not opposites, just a different kind of job.

And in that lies my question. So are you wiling to answer it, or not?

I'm not sure where you looked it up, but I applaud you for doing so. You may want to read the discussion of it here.

The thing that makes your options -- thinker or laborer -- a false dichotomy is that you've presented them as though they are the only two options.

After checking the content at the link I provided, you may want to peruse the list of fallacies found on the left side of that webpage. Doing so, you'll find all sorts of them -- I believe that site focuses mostly on informal fallacies, but it may also have formal ones, I don't recall. The site linked above, Logically Fallacious, is among the best one's I've found for not only does it identify the nature of the fallacies, but also it identifies exceptions to them when there are some and it explains the nuanced similarities and differences between those that seem identical. The latter two bits are rare to find.

If you are interested in understanding fallacies, I suggest you first explore informal ones because overwhelmingly the arguments one encounters re: politics and religion are inductive. To begin your inquiry, I suggest using a site like this to identify the most common informal fallacies and then examine the discussion of them found on Logically Fallacious to get a full understanding of them.

Note:

• Formal fallacy --> a logical failing found in a deductive argument or statement.
• Informal fallacy --> a logical failing found in an inductive argument or statement.

Most of the education I have is from real world living, not books or reading. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but there are a lot of us, who are high school dropouts, who paid our dues in the real world, and just don't understand words with more than a few syllables. And if it wasn't for spellcheck on computers, I couldn't spell syllables.

Red:
If by "real world living" you mean making observations obtained in the course of going about one's daily life, there's nothing wrong with that; it's a fine way to learn.

For example, people like Galileo, Copernicus and Tycho Brahe used exactly that approach to figure out that the Earth revolves around the sun, contrary to conventional wisdom at the time. Isaac Newton discovered gravity by observing the behavior of falling objects, namely the mere fact that they were falling with no apparent "thing" making them do so. LOL In retrospect, one has to wonder why took humanity literally tens of thousands of years to figure out that there must be some force making things fall; it's not as though falling was an unfamiliar or previously unobserved behavior. LOL

The Newton example illustrates the thing that distinguishes experiential learning from scholastic learning. The former requires one to observe objects and events and then go about figuring out what makes them be as they are observed, whether that which one observes is the norm or the exception, etc., and in doing so, one will fail and be wrong until one figures it out. The latter allows one to learn from the experiential learning of others, thus eliminating the need to fail in the same places others have; however, when one gets to the point of discovering and analyzing new things/ideas, one will, just as pure experiential learners, fail and be wrong until one figures it out.

The discoveries and ideas in all disciplines work that way. The only real drawback to relying extensively on experiential learning is that it requires, to the extent one doesn't share/publish one's findings, that each person essentially "reinvent the wheel." It also usually requires one be innately smarter than average in order to accurately "make sense of" (validly and accurately analyze and conclude about the causes and effects of that which one observes) what one has observed and put it in the proper perspective. That's asking quite a lot, IMO, for most folks aren't smarter than average, yet being of average "smarts" is amply adequate for simply going about the business of just living.

(Note: in saying the preceding, I am, in part, highlighting one of the differences between knowledge and intelligence....one need not be particularly intelligent to know a lot. Intelligence is like talent, one has so much of it by dint of one's birth. Knowledge is like learning to type; one can acquire it provided one is of average intelligence, which most folks are.)

For example, as a student from kindergarten to the master's level, one has little inherent reason for ever being wrong, other than simply not remembering or knowing something, about things that have been discovered by others provided one has been taught and has attempted to learn that which was taught. On the other hand, at the PhD level of learning, one is looking to discover things which, though they may have been suspected, haven't been credibly confirmed or denied (be it inductively or deductively). Therefore one may posit a hypothesis of what one thinks is the "reason" for X or Y being or being as it is and upon testing to find out if one's supposition is correct, one may find it is not. That testing one performs is experiential learning and it is learning regardless of whether one's hypothesis is found right or wrong, or some share of each.

Getting back to your point, I find it ironic that many people who claim to place a high value on learning via "real world" experiences and observations are often the very same people who decry the value of scholastic learning. I find it ironic because the people who are paid to learn things experientially are the very people who have, in their chosen field, the greatest quantities of academic learning. Our society, indeed humanity overall, doesn't encourage, empower and entrust people to engage in experiential learning until they've shown they have learned enough from those who came before them so as to not "reinvent the wheel" as they pursue new learnings.

Blue:
Strangely, my spelling accuracy has deteriorated over the years. I blame it on the advent and prevalence in my life of email which doesn't often lend itself to more than expressing simple thoughts with other people who understand the full context of what I'm writing about, thereby not necessitating the degrees of linguistic precision that were expected of me when I was in school. I have noticed that since I began writing on this site for an audience comprised entirely of strangers, my recollection of the correct spelling of words that for years I've spoken, but not routinely written, has returned gradually.

 

[320 Years of History]

Regardless of the nature of work one performs, it has the potential to be deletererious to the worker.

The potential for damage decreases the more it is on the worker's own terms--as with self employment, cooperative enterprise, etc.

??? Why should I believe that the deleterious risk to which a self-employed, say, electrician or accountant is exposed be any higher or lower than that for a plumber or accountant does the same work but as an employee?

 

[320 Years of History]

I consider myself a working man, I am a truck driver, I consider it a lazy man's job. Not because it's easy work, but because I'm not on my feet a lot, and most of my work is done while I'm on my rear, but some physical labor is involved.

I don't consider anyone who works on a computer all day to be a laborer. I consider them a thinker, and good for them, if you can make a living working smarter, not harder, I'm all for that.

I consider mechanics, and construction workers, and janitors, and teachers, and anyone who does actual physical labor in their jobs to be a laborer.

So, are you a laborer, or a thinker? and believe me, typing is not labor, if it was, I wouldn't be on a computer doing it right now.

So is a "working man" a "laborer" or a "thinker' or either/neither? What is the significance of these labels?

It means a lot to some people...

That would be attributed significance not innate significance. I think jwoodie was asking with regard to the latter, not the former type of import.

 

[320 Years of History]

Regardless of what you do for a living, if someone else signs your paycheck you are a laborer (aka worker).

I disagree, I cant consider Robert Downey Jr. a laborer, he works hard at his job, but he does NOT need to work. There seem to be many people, who do not need to work, who continue to work, for whatever the reason maybe.

Let's say there's a fellow who has for his whole life had non-job source of income that affords him about $200K/year and will continue to do so for as long as he lives. Furthermore, he also works as an architect from which he earns about $600K/year. That individual doesn't strictly speaking need to work as an architect, but he does because he enjoys the work he does; he finds it interesting and considers it something he wants to do and would do if at all possible.

It's the same with Mr. Downey. He loves the work he does, which is why he keeps doing it even though he may not have a financial need to work.

To yours and Mr Clean's points, while I don't know Mr. Downey or what he actually does when performing in the roles he gets, looking back to my days performing in high school plays, acting strikes me as quite physically taxing work, regardless of whether one collects a paycheck or withdraws retained earnings.