Thinking on Job training and 'adequate pay'

So the jobs market is like a big game and so a subject for this blog, right? Well, not really - in most games you rarely, upon losing, end up living in a cardboard box (nod to the casinos, though...)

But anyway, I was thinking how people want to be paid the amount they are worth. Or atleast I think I've heard people say that? Have you ever said that.

But the thing is, if you've ever trained for that job, shouldn't you need to be paid more than your worth?

Assuming unpaid training. Let's say you do 1000 hours of training, unpaid. And the job that training gets you to is paid at a 'worth' of $20 an hour.

Doesn't it actually need to pay more than $20 an hour, until it's paid off those training hours you did for no pay at the time? I mean, what, were your hours worth nothing at all during training? Not even a dollar an hour?

"But I do the training to get the job!"

Well yes, but your essentially getting it by giving away thousands of hours of your finite lifespan to a business which will then just pay you 'what the jobs worth' and in these days of few permanent positions, might dump you at any given time. As an act of desperate effort to get a job, yes, that makes sense. But then why turn around latter an act as if your actually living in an equitable society who pays you what your worth? If did whatever it takes to get that job, your not in an equitable society. Not to mention my old post stating that you can't get a job, unless you have mind control powers. In the current system, you only ever beg.

I'll finish up paraphrasing an author I like, "If anyone says your lucky to have a job, they literally mean you are lucky to have absolutely no leverage at getting a job".

Get a job! An examination of an impetus

Auspicious title for a first thread, eh?

There's often the phrase 'Get a job' and an impetus associated with that.

But look at the word 'get'. If you want, you can get a rock or twig off the ground. That is something you can do, because you can simply physically act upon it.

Can you just act upon another person, or do you need their consent? (and by need I mean a nod toward holding a perhaps a common pattern of morality)

So you can't just act upon an employer and make/force him in order to obtain a job, as he is a person and not a rock or twig.

So this person has a choice about giving you a job. It is up to their whim.

"No, they need employees otherwise their income will suffer so...", perhaps you say?

But wait, isn't he or she supposed to have a choice? A genuine choice? Take this, for example: If you wanted to sleep with someone, and they would suffer income loss if they don't sleep with you, does that seem right? Or wrong? If that seems wrong, why is this any different?

"But this is a job, it's different, it can be more..."

More cut throat? You can start leaning on other peoples choices more and applying pressure so they don't really have a genuine choice? Would you like that happening to you? Is it already happening to you and reducing your quality of life?

Perhaps you've believed you could get, in the same way as you can get a rock or a twig, a job. Perhaps you've implied other people are able to, and so should. Perhaps you feel empowered to be able to get a job.

But it's not really compatable with the idea of letting others make genuine choices about their lives, is it?