There’s a lot of jobs in the private and public sector for people with anthropology degrees. In the US, anthropology is taught as a four field approach encompassing Biological Anthropology, Cultural Anthropology, Linguistic Anthropology, and Archaeology.

Each of the subfields have different levels of hireability based on a bachelor’s degree.

I personally only have a bachelor’s and live well. I have a home and live comfortably. But, to your point, I have essentially capped out my earnings. I can’t make more without obtaining a graduate degree.

I have my doubts on if they’ve ever worked a job.

No, it’s not. When people use the term “unskilled” for jobs it doesn’t mean “you literally have to have zero skills, not even the ability to user your hands, to do it” - it means you only need a limited skill set and is a job that has minimal economic value. Essentially it’s a job that anyone at any stage could walk into and be able to do with minimal training.

That has always been how the skilled/unskilled labor gap has been broken up.

You’ve bought the lie they’ve been telling forever. Every person that goes to work is performing skilled labor. The only thing a person can do that doesn’t take any skill is being born rich.

Rich assholes that do nothing other than “invest” into a buisness. Every dime made from there is off the backs of working folks. Without our skills the wealthy would be poor.

The minimum wage when it was instituted was designed to represent the minimum wage needed for a single worked to support a family.

Additionally all labor is skilled labor. You either need school or experience to perform a job. I can drop a highly educated neurosurgeon into a restaurant. Without instructions they will fail at the job.

Anyway, all labor deserves a living wage. If you work a full week you should be able to support yourself comfortably.

This explains why people gave me a hard time for getting an anthropology degree…

I try to keep a small glimmer of hope that we come to our sense and make dramatic changes over the next 20 years, but I doubt it.

If we were to invest our resources heavily into reversing these trends I think it’s possible, but that would have to be humanity’s collective goal. We can’t even agree to stop murdering each other though so yeah it’s bad

Nuclear energy is both sustainable and safe. It was given a bad reputation by the fossil fuel industry to keep us buying oil.

Well here we are. We could have eliminated the vast majority of fossil fuel use by the 1960s when solar and wind energy were in their infancy.

And it’s a shame that we became scared of one of the greatest technologies we ever created.

Nuclear accidents have killed using the most extreme number 45,000 people. Directly meltdowns have killed less than 100. The middle ground estimates average out around 5,000, but let’s give the most extreme number possible for the sake of the argument. These numbers are including projected cancer rates.

Cars annually kill 1.19 million people in comparison.

Even if you were to add nuclear weapon usage to the numbers you’d still barely be close to these numbers. Plus every time there’s been an nuclear accident new technologies and safe guards are deployed. 40,000 of that estimated/projected death toll is from Chernobyl.

Pretty much, I struggle to see any real human achievement in my lifetime. Sure we invented phones and computers are faster than ever before. We haven’t really done anything worthwhile. No real improvements in the human condition.

We have fun content, but our planet is going to cook

I don’t think that’s a fair comparison to modern day.

People were experimenting with steam engines for 1,000 years sure, but this wasn’t 1,000 years of dedicated research.

It was more like someone discovered the principle, then someone re-discovered the same principle 200 years later in a different, and repeat. Every time interest was lost. It wasn’t until much later that people started to build off of each other and actually pursue technology.

I never understood what they were testing with that test either. Like yeah if you strap a body to a chair loaded with explosives it blows up.

Also a pig would have worked just as well and would have been cheaper.

It’s not social safety net first, everything else after. It’s both at the same time.

I’ve said this was easily possible 3 times now, but you seem to have decided to read what you want. Regardless of what’s being said.

Might be for the best to follow your own policy if you fail to read and comprehend the nuances of the conversation.

Seems like back pedaling but I’ll bite.

I said it because the ability to create a social safety net and the ability to do research, even for the sake of international prestige, are in fact unrelated and the only reason to relate them is being hostile to both or trying to deflect from the lack of funding by shifting the blame to actually useful or productive things that do get funded.

As I said you can absolutely have both, but allowing poverty and human suffering to exit while focusing on these other things will always cast a shadow on them.

Like I said the starting point should be providing a basic standard of living for your citizens. Then you fund everything else. The US generates enough wealth to do both. The US generates enough wealth to fund hundreds of different programs, but I think a country’s first duty before all else is providing for its citizens. That statement doesn’t negate funding for anything else it just establishes a priority.

This is why I fear Lemmy will fail. I see this every other thread. If someone says something that is even slightly off the topic of the original post people just complain about how it’s unrelated, shutting down the very conversation that makes sites like these interesting.

I jumped into this conversation after the original comment. I thought they had a point. Sure their point was only loosely related, but I thought it was interesting conversation and worth a discussion. But no that would be too much fun.

Right so this was addressed in the “of course we can have both” section of my comment.

So to reiterate, of course we can have both scientific research and provide for our citizens. It’s my view that we should ensure our citizens are provided a basic standard of living and assign the remaining budget from there.

The budget is quite massive and we should have no issue providing for both the people and research/scientific exploration. I would personally assign great value to these types of things. Honestly we can do both at the same time and we can easily do both by reallocating a small percentage of the defense budget but it won’t happen. The budget increase given to Homeland Security is sickening.

Disagree, we as a nation put a small percentage of our resources into space exploration just for the sake of a dick measuring contest with another nation.

We could absolutely end poverty.

Of course I think we could have both, but what’s the point of putting a man on the moon if your citizens can’t even afford access to healthcare

My first month on lemmy a mod on .ml sent me a death threat and banned me from a community for basically stating that given the option between Trump and Kamala I voted Kamala.

So that was a fun interaction

So main issue with this comment is the UK system allows for more than 2 choices.

You can spend 200 years listening to a language, but if you don’t try to understand it you never will

Makes a lot of sense to try and preserve the remaining 40% then