"Losers"

The title of this column was very decieving, I had no idea what the columnist meant by the term loser. I thought this article was very interesting. The way he defined losers and winners were by their jobs and what they do for a living. The "winners" have the highest paying jobs and have ideal jobs, while the "losers" have the lowest paying jobs that nobody would ever want to do for a living.
I think society does depend on the loser jobs, no one wants to do the dirty work so if no one did the low paying jobs i agree the world would not function the way it does now without the low paying jobs. I think it is sad that the rich people judge the people that make less than them. It is really sad because the people they are judging they wouldn't do their jobs and if they did those people would probably not judge them anymore. The only reason we have places to eat out, gamble, or really anything out in public is because of the loser jobs that people work at. How could we enjoy ourselves without people working the loser 10 dollars or less pay?
This article also mentions crime rate without people doing crimes we wouldn't have law enforcement, or people that work in prisons or jails. There would be no such things then as your high paid lawyers or courthouse workers.So we need the losers to be apart of our society otherwise the winners would be nonexistent.
The only thong I really didn't agree on is some of the winner jobs our society wouldn't be able to function without them like our nation's doctors without them we wouldnt have q very healthy society. So I think that was a little exaggerated on that quote. Otherwise I completely agree that without some of the loser jobs we wouldn't have our winner jobs.