'suck' is a relative term based on some standard. Is the standard chattel slavery? Every single job in the US is spectacular in comparison. Is the standard some cushy s/w dev job at a megatech company? Most jobs suck in comparison.
The word is there to create a catchy headline. The article very much goes into the why:
* Many jobs provide poor opportunities for advancement if desired.
* Many jobs provide poor compensation relative to cost of living.
* Many jobs lack stability, either in pay, hours, or continued employment.
* Many jobs provide limited agency to improve working conditions or business practices.
The last one is something that even I, a holder of a cushy tech job, grapple with. Most of my job is fine, but it's painful to deal with boneheaded and poorly thought out management decisions that management neither cares to justify nor is willing to accept feedback on.
There's a lot of "I'm in charge, so we're doing it my way, which I know is perfect because I decided it was" in American corporate culture, with little avenue to course-correct, as the most frequent response seems to be retaliation for bruising someone's ego.
"pollster asked 6,600 U.S. workers what they saw as the defining characteristics of a “good” job, then used their answers to construct a “job-quality index.”
The article, which I'm sure you've read, links to a survey in which Gallup attempted to answer your question. They asked people exactly what features they look for in a quality job, then asked people if their jobs meet those standards. The summary specifically mentions "autonomy, opportunities for advancement and job security."
It's interesting to note that expectations for the limits of what's acceptable for labor are defined by, "Is it as bad as slavery?"
And for what it's worth, there is indeed "jobs" in this country that are objectively as bad as slavery. Most Americans do not work them, but they do help shape the market most Americans work in; and, in some cases, they are outright competing with them.
Compared to the average job back several decades ago (for a large part of the post war period).
Of course most people, being less talented than us, are lesser humans, and so deserve to have crappier jobs, hours, pay, and lives. (Well, not really, but probably many think that way. They might not say the "lesser humans" part out loud, but they're OK with people having lesser jobs and worse conditions for them and their kids, even if they work harder than them -let them eat cake and work smarter, they'd say-. They're OK as long as its not them of course).
I don't think the title of this article is good or portrays what it is really getting at. It is not really about having a cushy job that you like going to, but instead more about how jobs available today don't pay well.
The pay does not match up to inflation, healthcare costs and cost of living. Put the cost of higher education into that mix and it just adds to the problem. So many are stuck paying off high students loans to only be able to get mediocre paying jobs.
"only 40 percent of Americans currently have 'good' jobs."
Meaning head of household jobs. That is a problem!
Thats still all relative though. If everyone made between 10-15 bucks an hour, 15 bucks an hour would be enough to pay for anything that matters. Chinese investors aside, the reason an elementary school teacher might have trouble affording an apartment in Manhattan is because they're competing with people who can afford them. Such as the s/w engineer with the cushy job.
Right, the problem might arise from when you have some people making $9/hr and others making on the order of $1k-100k/hr. Those two groups both occupy and influence the markets, and if you don't keep that gap small enough you risk people not being able to afford the cost of living. I agree that if you paid everyone $10-15/hr, no one would be producing any goods that no one could afford.
