Even tho you added an edit. You’re still wrong. Garbage collection is typically a high paying job because no one wants to do it. But people still consider it “below” them and don’t want to do it even when there’s a high unemployment rate.

▲

cryzinger 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is over 20 years old, and I'm sure doesn't hold true in all areas, but at least at one point there was high demand to be a "san man" ("san" as in "sanitation") in NYC:

> It's a coveted job to be a New York City san man. When they last gave the qualifying test, 30,000 people took it. The General waited five years after passing the exam before a job came open, which is typical. And though the work is grueling, the pay-- if you're actually on a truck-- starts at $40,000 and can go to $60 after just five years. [note: this is in 2003 dollars!] A good winter, meaning one with lots of overtime for clearing snow-- they clear snow, too-- can make for a $90,000 year for a senior guy.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/249/garbage

These guys are/were unionized, which certainly helps.

	▲	deaux 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		And that's how it should be. Trash men should be making $200K and have high social status whereas the devs helping Bezos to his 5th super yacht or Zuck poison more kids should get minimum wage and treated as pariahs. Unfortunately at the country level it's reversed.

▲

AngryData 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't know if I would call it high pay anywhere ive lived. It is okay pay around me right now in a less prosperous area of the country for not requiring tools or previous skills. But the main thing going for it around here is stability of hours, a decent amount of holidays off, and you don't have to destroy your body.

	▲	PearlRiver an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It is actually a pretty good job. Civilization will always need garbage disposal. So many people are locked in on on temporary contracts constantly in fear of termination.

▲

stevenwoo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For manual labor I thought the guys I know who do garbage pickup have a great job - their hours are shifted so they work from 4am to noon so they have plenty of time for hobbies and family outside of that. All the time sitting and driving the truck is hard though they rarely have to handle anything manually with standardized bins and hydraulic lifts.

▲

thfuran 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I guarantee you that a lot more people would be willing to put up with it for $10 million a year.

	▲	alex43578 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Ok, but society can't bear the cost of $10M garbage men, so either people will do it themselves or go without. The same argument applies to any job: in most scenarios, it pays what it's worth to society at the market clearing price. The government can interfere via licensing, minimum wages, quotas, etc; but broadly the job pays what it's worth.
	▲	upsuper 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You would probably need to face voters questioning whether that's the best way to use their money.

▲

Loughla 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Garbage collectors where I live used to make $30-$35/hr starting wage. It was a good job and they always had applicants.

Now they have the trucks that dump the bins without getting out of the truck. The driver's make $18/hr.

▲

beeflet 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

okay, so the lack of robots/supply increases garbage collector wages, which broadly results in wealth distribution vs robots.

▲

rohansood15 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Why do you think that making people do what they don't want to do for more money is the most effective way to distribute wealth?

	▲	Nevermark 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Paying people more to do work that less people want to do makes sense. > … the most effective way to distribute wealth? Nobody said this is a template for every problem, opportunity or other situation in economics.