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
    43·
    2 days 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.

        • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
          22·
          2 days ago

          In the US around 30 people a year die from chainsaws. Because that number is small compared to other hazards, chainsaws are safe and not dangerous. This is your argument, do you see that, at all?

          • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.worldEnglish
            32·
            2 days 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.