Under capitalism, a lot of the time, highly dangerous jobs are also highly paid. Kind of a balance that the individual decides to engage with. Same idea behind getting an advanced degree in STEM or law. I think of my job by example, I’m a power plant operator at a large combined cycle plant. No fucking shot I’d be doing this if the pay wasn’t good. I’m around explosive and deadly hot shit all day.

    • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.worldEnglish
      83·
      7 months ago

      Your job isn’t dangerous. It’s potentially dangerous…but well-regulated and rated as very safe by employment standards.

      Resource extraction jobs, for example, are statistically the least safe and tend to not pay well.

        • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.worldEnglish
          43·
          7 months ago

          Your job remains statistically safe. Calling it “dangerous” isn’t accurate.

          Your argument is like saying flying is more dangerous than other travel because you die more often when there’s an accident.

                • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.worldEnglish
                  42·
                  7 months ago

                  Yes. Chainsaws are very safe…if you get a newer chainsaw you basically have to intentionally injure yourself with it.

                  Seems like this is a pointless argument about potentially dangerous vs statistically dangerous.

                  I’ll concede that you’re paid well because all the training you receive to make your dangerous job safe puts a premium on labour in your sector. Better?

                  I’m trying to stick to your original question, though: the most (statistically) dangerous jobs under capitalism aren’t very well paid - relatively (like resource extraction), and under communism all jobs aren’t paid the same.