Best and Worst Occupations

The Wall Street Journal’s Executive Career Site, Careerjournal.com, recently released a report featuring lists of “Best Jobs” and “Worst Jobs.”

Here are the 10 “best” jobs:

1. Actuary
2. Biologist
3. Financial planner
4. Web site manager
5. Accountant
6. Software engineer
7. Statistician
8. Bank officer
9. Parole officer
10. Computer systems analyst

Here are the 10 “worst” jobs:

1. Cowboy
2. Fisherman
3. Construction worker (labourer)
4. Iron worker
5. Lumberjack
6. Dancer
7. Roofer
8. Garbage collector
9. Seaman
10. Welder

I sense a theme! Desk-induced atrophy: good. Burning calories: bad. The list of worst jobs is laden with careers that require physical effort above and beyond pencil pushing. If, in addition, you work outside and are in close proximity to wildlife, well then my friend, you are pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel.

CareerJournal.com editors conferred with Les Krantz, a nonfiction publisher and researcher based in Lake Geneva, Wis. -- for some help. Mr. Krantz has researched good jobs -- and bad ones -- using data from sources such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and judging by some of his own hunches.

Mr. Krantz uses six main factors to judge a job: income, stress, physical demands, outlook, security and work environment.

So according to Krantz, the perfect job would feature a high income, low stress, no physical demands, a positive outlook, high job security and a positive work environment. I can’t argue with the presence of 5 of the 6 factors; a high wage, low stress, positive outlook, high job security and a positive work environment are probably all indicators of a satisfying occupation. But are jobs with high physical demands automatically bad? What kind of weightings did he use for each factor?

Take a look at a couple of assumptions that were made for the report:

1. that it's better to work indoors in an air-conditioned office than to work outside.
2. that it's better to be in a noncompetitive environment.

There is little doubt I’d rather be in a heated office than working outside during the winter. But as DeNiro once explained, there is a flip side to that coin; I’d much rather be working outside during the spring/summer/fall than stuck in an office for 8-10 hours per day. So what kind of job is better; outdoor or indoor? Years of being cooped up in Dilbert-land has made me yearn for the great outdoors, so I’m leaning towards the former. Of course I might be afflicted with a case of TGIGOTOSS (The Grass Is Greener On The Other Side Syndrome). My cousin works in construction and I know that while he’s generally a happy person, he isn’t without complaint. Maybe TGIGOTOSS runs in the family?

Back to the report which suggests that, among all of the top dogs, actuaries are the ones living la vida loca. Well I happen to know a lot about the field, and while I wouldn’t dare call it a bad job, it isn’t quite all it’s cracked up to be. The income is good but does not measure up to the hype (for most of the rank and file actuaries – company big-wigs are an obvious exception). Stress levels range from moderate (for many actuaries who work in the insurance or property & casualty fields) to high (for many actuaries who work for HR consulting firms). As for the work environment, let’s just say it is hit and miss across the various disciplines (e.g. insurance vs. consulting) and individual companies (not to mention different cities, departments within the company, etc). Again, it’s a good job, but if that’s the absolute best that society has to offer then what is the point of it all?

‘Cowboy,’ meanwhile, is allegedly the worst job one could have. As a cowboy you earn a meager income (average = $18,000 U.S.), there is a strong physical component, and the long-term outlook for cowboys probably isn’t great. But is the work environment so bad? Despite the demanding schedule, is it more stressful than office work? This is the worst job? What about ‘public toilet cleaner?’ ‘Peep-show janitor?’ Other?

Looking at the criteria and assumptions adopted by the report’s authors, I suggest that there are clearly worse jobs out there than the 10 listed. For example, what about ‘professional athlete?’

• pressure of having to win regularly (i.e. stress)
• high physical demands
• the long-term job outlook is grim (job growth is slow, careers are brief)
• job security is poor (unless you excel)
• you are placed in a work environment where you are often yelled at by coaches, taunted by fans, forced to exercise, are opposed by aggressive, even hostile competitors on a regular basis, and are at constant, high risk of injury.

Professional athletes have it really rough! OK, so the wages can be pretty good. But still, is it worth putting yourself through the hell I’ve just described when you can work at a white-collar job instead?

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to bed. I’ve got to get up early for another day working on Easy Street (where my office is located).