Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Businesses

Only 40% of Workers Have High-Quality Jobs, Gallup Finds (gallup.com) 53

Posted by msmash from the state-of-affairs dept.
joshuark writes: Not all jobs are created equal, according to the new American Job Quality Study. The nationally representative survey of roughly 18,000 Americans finds that just 40% of U.S. workers hold "quality jobs," "Quality jobs" are defined as roles with fair compensation, safe environments, growth opportunities, agency and manageable schedules. Quality jobs are linked to higher satisfaction and wellbeing, yet most U.S. workers face gaps in pay, advancement, scheduling and fairness.

As former obsolete technology COM guru Don Box stated: COM sucks but pays my bucks. Now it sucks and no bucks.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Only 40% of Workers Have High-Quality Jobs, Gallup Finds More

Only 40% of Workers Have High-Quality Jobs, Gallup Finds

Comments Filter:

  • TBH... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SouthSeb ( 8814349 ) on Friday October 17, 2025 @09:20AM (#65731832)

    To be honest, 40% is much more than I would expect. I bet it's much lower in most of other countries.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 )
      Hey, it's all relative. This is not far from saying, "only 50% of jobs are above average!!!"

      • Hey, it's all relative. This is not far from saying, "only 50% of jobs are above average!!!"

        First of all, that's only true if the average (i.e., mean) job is the same as the median job. Then your 50% claim would be true.

        Okay, /pedantry.

        Now, the issue addressed is not whether one has an average job. It's whether one has a quality job. In a perfect world, 100% of all workers would have a quality job -- one that allows them to not just survive, but thrive, prosper, and be happy. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world, and probably never will, but at least let us strive towards that end.

        • In a perfect world, 100% of all workers would have a quality job -- one that allows them to not just survive, but thrive, prosper, and be happy. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world, and probably never will, but at least let us strive towards that end.

          "No." ~ Effectively "all" investors, business lobbyists, the entire C-suite, and companies promoting or using AI

          • In a perfect world, 100% of all workers would have a quality job -- one that allows them to not just survive, but thrive, prosper, and be happy. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world, and probably never will, but at least let us strive towards that end.

            "No." ~ Effectively "all" investors, business lobbyists, the entire C-suite, and companies promoting or using AI

            If you think that's a "perfect world" then I hope for your sake you're in the group you just described.

            • I am not, hence the (apparently bad) attempt to present that as a quote.

              As far as I can tell, we have the technical resources to create a thriving environment for the vast majority of people (and life in general), but have failed to due so because our social systems are predicated on greed. I had the impression that we might agree on that in principle - did I get that wrong?

              • As far as I can tell, we have the technical resources to create a thriving environment for the vast majority of people (and life in general), but have failed to due so because our social systems are predicated on greed. I had the impression that we might agree on that in principle - did I get that wrong?

                No, you didn't get that wrong. I think we do agree on these things. Thanks for the reply.

      • There's a systemic problem if in the richest nations of the world, your average job does not meet basic criteria like: fair compensation, safe environments, growth opportunities, agency and manageable schedules.

        • There's always going to be a systemic problem so long as we have capitalism, because capitalism relies upon maintaining a systemic problem, specifically, workers being paid less than the value of their labour, which is, on average, where profits come from..

          • There's always going to be a systemic problem so long as we have capitalism, because capitalism relies upon maintaining a systemic problem, specifically, workers being paid less than the value of their labour, which is, on average, where profits come from..

            Of course if you get rid of capitalism then you get a different systemic problem, massive shortfalls in production, making everyone worse off. Much like democracy, capitalism is the worst system except for all of the others.

            • massive shortfalls in production

              Not necessarily. Certainly short falls are a risk in any centrally planned economy if the planners are incompetent. History of the Soviet Union shows how badly that can go.

              But a one-party system isn't the only possible model, and there's a fair bit of sense to the concept of a soviet (workers council). I think it's overly ambitious to argue that a soviet is a higher form of democracy (a Lenin may have argued). Because once these councils were slotted into a massive hierarchical system, the middle layers bec

              • massive shortfalls in production

                Not necessarily.

                I notice that you didn't provide any counterexamples which is, of course, because there aren't any. No planned economy larger than a few hundred people has ever succeeded. While capitalist economies do go through cycles of expansion and recession (which a well-functioning central bank and adequate regulatory oversight can ameliorate but not eliminate), capitalism consistently makes the entire society wealthier, top to bottom. Yes, it does tend to produce inequality, and that has some negative social effec

    • I think a lot of us in tech feel this way because tech companies tend to be larger companies, and therefore more boneheaded and mind-numbing. Good jobs are the ones where you work for a small company, where everybody knows everybody else, they know what you can do, and appreciate it.

  • I didn't read the article. Don't need to. :)

    These sorts of metrics are simply made up and given a seductively simple label. Someone or some organization arbitrarily decides what is a "quality job", "8th grade reading level", "healthy body mass index (BMI)", etc.

    Don't worry about it too much. Life isn't that bad, but there is money to be made convincing you otherwise.

  • That's not good? (Score:3)

    by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Friday October 17, 2025 @09:27AM (#65731846)
    "High Quality" usually describes things a deviation or two out on the right of a bell curve. If the portion of "high quality jobs" is over 15.7%, I'm struggling to see why that's framed as bad. Is their definition of "high quality", "two standard deviations above the mean", meaning this number should be seven points higher?

    That said, the definition seems artificial and a bit silly. Having all of those things, but a fixed 9-5 schedule, would make it not high quality? What about millionaire lawyers and financiers who are working 60-80 hours a week? Are those low quality jobs?

    Oh! Wait a moment! The article doesn't say "high-quality", it says "quality". Someone screwed up the headline. I'll accept "quality" to be 2 deviations over the mean. Which also means that their findings are not significantly different from what they should be. Which means this report actually indicates that everything is fine!

    • I didn't read "quality" (high or otherwise) that way.

      It's not where the jobs sit on a distribution, it's what proportion of the jobs in the distribution have quality. Ideally, 100% of the jobs would satisfy that criterion.

      • Yes, obviously it would be for the best if everyone was above average.

        In reality, there are good jobs and bad jobs. Some good jobs are really, really good, and vice versa. One might even go so far as to subject the range of jobs to statistical analysis.

        • Re:That's not good? (Score:5, Funny)

          by Tim the Gecko ( 745081 ) on Friday October 17, 2025 @11:43AM (#65732156)

          Yes, obviously it would be for the best if everyone was above average.

          There's also the idea of rating on a more absolute scale. 50% of the times you are kicked in the nuts are above average, and 50% of blow jobs are below average. It's possible for almost all jobs to be objectively terrible, so if 40% can be described as "quality" then that's very good news, but obviously we should be striving to make it 100%. Even when every job is "quality" there will be better or worse ones:

          Michael James: Did you find a job?
          Victor Skakapopulis: Yeah, I got something at the striptease. I help the girls dress and undress.
          Michael James: Nice job.
          Victor Skakapopulis: Twenty francs a week.
          Michael James: Not very much.
          Victor Skakapopulis: It's all I can afford.

          • Given their definition, it cannot ever be 100%. I'm surprised it's 40%, given that they define quality as including "agency" and "manageable(?)" schedules.

            How many decision makers do they expect there to be? How many necessarily rigid schedules do they expect there not to be? Some people need to work at Burger King!

          • I did enjoy the joke though.

          • obviously we should be striving to make it 100%

            If 100% of jobs meet some standard, we'll pick a higher standard. For example, consider the standard that employees not be chained to their benches, fed nothing but moldy bread and be brutally whipped if the overseer feels like it. 100% of legitimate jobs in the US exceed that standard. OSHA exists to ensure that jobs meet minimum workplace safety standards and minimum wage laws ensure that jobs pay at least a certain amount, so we don't discuss whether jobs meet those standards, we take them as a given a

        • Yes, obviously it would be for the best if everyone was above average.

          By the very definition of average, it is impossible for everyone to be above it.

          In reality, there are good jobs and bad jobs. Some good jobs are really, really good, and vice versa. One might even go so far as to subject the range of jobs to statistical analysis.

          No, you're missing the point. It's not about what is "average." It's about the quality of the jobs in the distribution. And that is independent of the distribution.

          If an average job does not pay enough to survive, then you cannot claim jobs have quality simply because they are above average.

          You misunderstand the "statistical analysis" at work here.

  • I know the implication is "not even half the workers have quality jobs!!" rage-bait but I rather suspect that most of the historical data (curiously not really presented as far as I could see in a skim of the OP and linked report) would show that - by their metrics - MOST people don't have "quality" employment, ever. And have NEVER had so.

    Then again, it seems a very 21st century thing that people can daydream about their fantasy situation "I wish I only worked 3 days a week, half days, from home, got paid

  • Is COM still a "growth opportunity" technology?

  • Welcome to the Precarious Economy (Score:4)

    by hwstar ( 35834 ) on Friday October 17, 2025 @09:54AM (#65731900)

    Living is becoming more precarious as time marches on.

    Most jobs will be come "Work to Live".

    The degradation/enshittification has been slowly occurring for some time now and will continue until we get to a point were we were in the mid to late 19th century again. In the mid to late 19th people worked in factories for 14 hours per day 6-7 days per week.

    The biggest flaw of the citizens of the USA, as that they don't seem to care about this gradual decline in job quality and living standards. The proverbial frog is being boiled and they don't even know they're cooked yet.

    The right to vote will be taken away soon. This because once the citizenry realize they are cooked, they'll try to vote out the politicians who put them in this condition. The politicians in power will have none of this. The politicians in power will break their oath to uphold the constitution and they'll declare martial law under the guise of some kind of national emergency or "invasion".

    Anti-vagrancy laws and debtors prisons will make a comeback. People who refuse to work or can't hold down a job will be sentenced to the Workhouses". Those who can't pay their debts will end up in the workhouses as well. Those who can no longer work due to health conditions will be euthanized.

    • The biggest flaw of the citizens of the USA, as that they don't seem to care about this gradual decline in job quality and living standards.

      Oh, I think people care. Bernie is very popular for a reason. One of the political parties clearly isn't interested in fixing this, and the donor class of the other party doesn't want them to make material changes, even if they give lip service to improving material conditions for people.

      And those are the only two choices when we vote. I hope that peaceful political activism becomes more common.

      • Re:Welcome to the Precarious Economy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hwstar ( 35834 ) on Friday October 17, 2025 @10:26AM (#65731970)

        "and the donor class of the other party doesn't want them to make material changes"

        This is spot on, and one of the main drivers why no material changes will ever occur as long as there is really only "one and a half parties" in the United States.

        How is this fixed? Probably only by a constitutional amendment stating that all candidates are to be publicly financed in some form which cannot be perverted by special interests.

        Will this constitutional amendment ever be ratified? No, not without tremendous sacrifices by the citizenry to dig out of the quasi-authoritarian state we are in now,

    • Living is becoming more precarious as time marches on.

      Most jobs will be come "Work to Live".

      This has been the way since time immemorial.

      The vast majority of people have always worked to live. Only the privileged have been able to dedicate their lives to a purpose other than their ongoing survival and the continuation of their line.

  • How can COM be obsolete technology? Every post-NET Windows API is build on it (WinRT=COM) ... oh wait, nevermind.

  • This is a completely false metric. Why would everyone be expected to be in a high quality job? Production lines, picking & packing, cleaning, garbage collection, waste disposal, plumbing... All of these are not what you'd call high quality job. Yet, they are very much needed in every society. A high quality job is the end goal, the American dream. You work through low-level jobs, work hard, get promoted, make it in life, earn a decent living. If everyone would be in high quality jobs, there wouldn't be

    • If the job of garbage collector was to work five days a week from 9am to 1pm and provided a comfortable salary and good benefits, it would be a very high quality job. Most people with kids in school would love those hours and the freedom it provides, even if they didn't like the work itself.

      You don't have to like the work to be a high-quality job, it's the total package that matters. There still is motivation to get a better job, but that doesn't make it low quality.

  • It that high? (Score:4, Informative)

    by whitroth ( 9367 ) <whitroth&5-cent,us> on Friday October 17, 2025 @11:19AM (#65732114) Homepage

    In his 1978 book, Working, Studs Terkel noted that a then-recent study said that 80% of *everyone* wasn't just unhappy with their job, but actively hated it.

  • 60% of the jobs suck with unfair compensation, and/or unsafe environments, and/or no growth opportunity, and/or no agency or manageable schedules.

    Guess which jobs AI is going to eliminate. In less than 5 years that 60% number is going to increase significantly despite a reduced number of workers.

  • How safe is safe? (Score:3)

    by Mspangler ( 770054 ) on Friday October 17, 2025 @11:49AM (#65732166)

    That's nice and vague.

    Is an electrician a safe job? How about Lineman? Or any construction job?
    Or logging, mining, and so forth.

    I worked in a chemical plant, is that safe enough? I ended up in the PA's office for first aid a few times, but didn't need anything beyond that.

    How about the apple pickers across the street? They are up ladders much of the day. Safe?

    If opportunity for advancement within the organization is required then only the Navy would count as the "good" job. Everywhere else you had to advance by changing jobs. But if I had considered the Navy a "good" job I would have stated in for my 20 years and a pension. I did not.

  • ...try LPT instead.

  • No, the survey did not find that "only 40% of workers have high-quality jobs." Rather, the survey found that 40% of people responded to the survey with sufficiently positive responses that were above the arbitrary thresholds. It's not clear if there is much that is non-obvious in these survey results.

  • That makes sense as a lot of jobs don't require all that much training or education. Therefore, since it's a low skilled, easy job, it's of course not going to be high quality as the potential labor market is huge.

    A doctor on the otherhand, needs nearly a decade of school before they can even begin to do anything. That kind of job requirement is going to shrink the amount of qualified candidates that exist.

    Let's take my job for example. I work in a grocery store. On my smart ass days, I like to call it a hi

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell

Close