Job-Based Classism

Classist arrogance and stereotypes, no matter the direction they are aimed at, are invalid and thus have to be assumed out of blind stupidity or, also out of stupidity, believed in denial of truths that someone has brushed up against and tried to set aside anyway.  Because of systematic underpayment in many industries or roles, only certain jobs pay enough or more than enough to thrive on without sacrificing necessities for survival or very important problems that make life incredibly difficult or less appealing.  Because of the economic and social power that they wield, executives can often escape social uproar because of their wealth even if they do egregious things.  In both cases, there are people who look down on or up to them arbitrarily because of their occupation on irrelevant grounds.

Unlike what a multitude of conservatives seem to gleefully think, people who bring mobile orders to vehicles, process items in warehouses, or serve as the front lines between a company and its consumers are indispensable in their roles.  No, unlike what some liberals might think, a person is great as an individual, beyond whatever human rights they might have by being human (not because someone feels like rights exist or because a government says they do), exclusively because they are a rationalist and hopefully a moralistic Christian because of their rationalism, not because they are a part of the "working class" or whatever meaningless criteria certain liberals practically deify.  No one is a rational or righteous person by virtue of having a job that is useful to society, though indeed some of the jobs that pay the least are the ones that are truly the most vital.

At the same time, short of jobs that are immoral (for instance, on Biblical ethics, prostitution or torture of any kind except for the very limited kinds prescribed by Mosaic Law), there is no such thing as a job that lowers a person's value.  There are morally permissible jobs that might be underappreciated or underpaid, but there are not jobs that render one person superior or inferior to another.  Aside from the irrelevance of such jobs to someone's rationalistic awareness and moral standing, not everyone even has the same access to different options.  Geography, family circumstances, mental health, school, and the business needs of a company all are significant variables that impact the ease someone can find or maintain a given job.

Those who look down on someone just because of their job--from that of a waiter or waitress to that of a C-Suite executive (no, it is logically possible to be an executive who is not predatory or selfish, as uncommon as examples of this seem to be in American society)--and not because of their philosophical competence or their moral character are fools.  It can be pragmatically better for people to seek some jobs more than others because certain occupations are not properly compensated or treated well, but there is nothing besides this unfortunate reality that is relevant besides a person's individual needs and preferences.  They have not sinned by not wanting or pursuing some incredibly prestigious career.

The conservative tendency to look down on the lower class or those with less prestigious jobs and the liberal tendency to assume malice and greed on the part of anyone in the upper class are asinine failures to be rational.  Manual labor, casual labor, computerized labor, educational labor, executive labor, and many other kinds are no more or less dignified in their own way as long as the role is not misunderstood irrationalistically, for all of them can both lead to personal fulfillment without irrationalism and to the enrichment of broader society.  There is no specific class of work other than the immoral types that deserves to be regarded with suspicion, contempt, or neglect by the communities that benefit from them.