/ Best and worst jobs
How do you fair?
Rather depends on the criteria i think.
For me the thought of staring at a computer screen all day sounds like a living hell. (at least, thats what i assume software engineers do?!)
I certainly wouldnt trade it in for what i do: yoga teacher in the caribbean :)
Sort of number 5.
Not bad,not bad.
However I work in Financial Planning rather than actually being a financial planner.
I'm number 3. I find it tedious, dull and with no satisfaction at all :(
> Sort of number 5.
> Not bad,not bad.
> However I work in Financial Planning rather than actually being a financial planner.
Do you bring the tea?? You are lucky mind, my profession, doesn't even come on the scale...
Don't believe a word of it
I'm a Lumberjack and I'm OK
Hmm, well I'm in at 94 (Chemist) which puts me in a worse position than the bloke who fixes the vending machine but in a slightly better position than a Cosmetologist. Nice to know that a highly qualified position in the pharmaceutical industry is being rewarded by being a lofty 5 places above a flipping nail technician.
10th. Sort of. And I like it a lot.
I'd rather eat my own face off with a blunt, rusty spoon than be an actuary though...
I do the research/write the reports and he "schmoozes" and signs things off.
Oh and I love my job!!
Number 47 - accountant. "City Hall penpusher" wasn't on the list.
Way down the list at 137 as a teacher
The thought once occurred to me that if one wanted to crush and destroy a man entirely, to mete out to him the most terrible punishment,one at which the most fearsome murderer would tremble, shrinking from it in advance, all one would have to do would make him do work that was completely and utterly devoid of usefulness and meaning. - Dostoyevsky
With thanks to DuckEgg and Annie for bringing that to my attention.
I dunno. You can't really quantify enjoyment because it is so personal, but with regard to physical demands - they do count negatively because if you get injured, you are effectively out of work which kind of puts it on the same sort of zone as hiring prospects. Seems pretty objective to me.
I'm 56... which isn't too far down the list I suppose.
Mine doesnt appear on the list at all but I dont need anyone else to tell me how shit it is.
Sober baker wasn't on their either? ;-)
Sure the list isn't the most boring jobs?
Is Climbing Centre Lackey in there too??
> Rather depends on the criteria i think.
> For me the thought of staring at a computer screen all day sounds like a living hell. (at least, thats what i assume software engineers do?!)
Sometimes it's utterly tedious, a lot of the time it's just work, quite often it's pretty interesting, and occasionally my hands shake from the excitement and I can't type fast enough. I'm being quite serious.
I think I'd find teaching yoga a living hell though, so horses for courses and all that.
I'm down at 120 (nearest I can get) but wouldn't swap for higher scores. My job has plenty of plus points, so I'm happy.
> I think I'd find teaching yoga a living hell though, so horses for courses and all that.
But i guess the point is that i am really into yoga and therefore im doing a job in a field that i love.
That seems to be what makes people happy
Can't place myself on this as even I'm not sure what I do, I do seem to go to an awful lot of meetings though, we even have meetings to decide what to have meetings about.
You're not working for the UN by any chance??
My ex worked for UNDP and all she ever did was have meeting after meeting
Civil Service, it seems to be the way with lots of government depts.
Yes, and Actuary is no 2??????
If there's a definition of mind-numbing tedium that's it...
Nos 44 and 47 in this house, as it happens..
I am 185th. 3 places below a maid but a whopping 8 above a dishwasher!
I don't even make the list! Although I have a degree in computing and am planning to make a nice side business out of 1, so does that mean I qualify?
Ha. Well I'm no. 2 on the list, and the role within that space can vary hugely. My current job is very interesting - lots of interaction with the most senior members of the company; mathematically complex; market driven.
People who say actuarial work is dull don't have an understanding of what an 'actuary' does. One actuary may work on pension funds valuations, another may look at natural catastrophe risk such as APAC earthquake regions. Vastly different jobs with little crossover.
Im now at 34 but I much preferred my job when I was a lowly 143
> Ha. Well I'm no. 2 on the list, and the role within that space can vary hugely. My current job is very interesting - lots of interaction with the most senior members of the company; mathematically complex; market driven.
> People who say actuarial work is dull don't have an understanding of what an 'actuary' does. One actuary may work on pension funds valuations, another may look at natural catastrophe risk such as APAC earthquake regions. Vastly different jobs with little crossover.
I did a lot of work last year on TASM, hence my comment... I'll admit it was pension funds...
Any job can be dull. I worked on a derivatives trading desk in Japan for a while. At times I was tearing my hair out with boredom.
Actuarial jobs can be good or bad - it's specific to the role. Hard to generalize, especially as in your case where you did one loosely actuarial job for one very specific area of finance. I've been in this area for more than 10 yrs and have had all types of roles.
One of the daftest lists I've ever seen, because it's based on the fallacy of weighing up immeasurable and incompatible data. It presupposes some hidden value system that's not explained; and even if it were, it could not of course be quantified. It also presupposes, surely, that the person doing the job is successful enough at it to be in work or get regular work. Yet the notion is lurking that the more difficult a job is to get the 'worse' it is. This nonsense results in some of the (surely) most satisfying jobs on this planet getting such low scores, e.g. being an artist, an actor, a publication editor, a conservationist, or a broadcaster. What I do now (author) is the most satisfying job I've ever done by quite a long way, yet it comes in at position 101 (just above a 'sewage plant operator' ... that has to be a joke, and a very good one too). The second most satisfying job I ever did was as a film and music editor, and that comes in at a derisory position 121. Just who are the wallies who've made these clever 'calculations'?
Final joke is 'Lumberjack' at the bottom, in position 200. Another good one. So Monty Python got it wrong all that time ago?
It just has to be an April fool.
You'll have to look hard to find a miserable hygienist.
I was a Human Resource Manager for over ten years.
I'm now a hedgelayer and drystone waller.
If,. by best job, measured by someone else's criteria, in this case the Wall Street Journal then HRM is at number 3.
But, if you mean by my criteria, Human Resource Manager is 50 and hedgelaying and drsytone walling is number 1.
Its a self gratifying conspiracy :)
I don't think this research does a good job, but it's I think it's perfectly measurable with a decent questionnaire - ask people how satisfied they are with various aspects of their work, including some good summary statements
e.g. Which do you agree with
- I would rather kill myself using a stapler than go into work tomorrow
- I love my job so much that I have cut off relations with everyone I love to focus on it with every fibre of my being
and you could do a perfectly good piece of research.
I think this survey falls down a bit by trying too hard to be objective. It's the likelihood that you will enjoy your job that is the measure of a good or bad vocation. There is the complication that if the job doesn't suit you, that means you won't like it, but while some people make bad choices, I think most people end up doing something they're suited to. And good research would make a decent attempt at accounting for this in the analysis.
Does anyone remember the Peter Cook and Dudley Moore sketch 'The worst job I ever had'? They said it was pulling lobsters out of Jayne Mansfield's *rse (blame them, not me, I'm just the messenger)
It can be done - economists do it all the time - but it won't apply to any single person in a very meaningful way.
166 for me. Looks like I'm going to have to force myself to enjoy work less then.
they've not included enjoyment or satisfaction in the calculation (something everyone seems to be missing!).
However the 5 things they have included don't appear to help any objective I can think of. It appears to be utterly pointless in every respect.
One of the daftest is that phycial demands are obviously taken as a big negative looking in the list - I'm sure a good number of people on here (as climbers and at least somewhat active and outdoorsy) would prefer something more phsical to sitting at a desk all day. (sadly I sit at a desk all day :-( )
can anyone explain any way they could use this list for any real purpose?
Elsewhere on the site
Urban climber James Kingston will be on stage at all UK screenings to answer questions about his remarkable film... Read more
Climbing as a discipline offers plentiful metaphors for tackling life's obstacles - bravery, courage, climbing to... Read more
The Lakpa Rita and Kriti Tech jackets are a pair of shell products from the Sherpa Adventure Gear brand – the... Read more