- cross-posted to:
- unions@lemmy.ml
- iwwunion@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
“Skill” in this sense can be boiled down to “replaceability due to automation.” The Industrial Revolution was as much about displacing highly trained, highly skilled craft laborers as it was about increasing raw production numbers. Highly trained craft workers up to that point handled most production of most things that weren’t food. To get around paying these folks for their training and skill, industrialists invested in automation so they could replace people who had literally trained for years in that craft with someone who just walked in off the street. Instead of having a team of carpenters who’d trained for years working in concert on every step of a process, you had a series of individual stations on a production line and only needed to train a new hire against their single specific role in the production line, not the whole process. The breaking-up of labor into small steps shared out across teams, in roles that could be trained in weeks or days instead of years, is kind of one of the core techniques of industrial production.
Because of the relatively less training needed to get started on the production line, factory owners were able to drive down wages substantially across the board and displace craft labor. The industrial revolution boosted profits as much by driving wages down as it did by increasing production, and using a hierarchy of “skill” (where the factory owners are constantly trying to replace workers with leverage) to pay workers less was one of the ways it did that.
Anyways, so yeah. There’s always been work that’s more skilled and less skilled, but the term “skilled labor” sort of derives from this phenomenon during the Industrial Revolution. In that sense, it is totally bullshit meant to drive down wages.
EDIT: Found some snippets on general history sites regarding this process: https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3517
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/industrialization-labor-and-life/
A related art movement, the Arts and Crafts movement, which arose as a response to the impact of industrialization on craft labor: https://www.thecollector.com/industrial-revolution-arts-and-crafts/\
EDIT: A word
Every fucking time:
It’s a distinction between “on-the-job training will suffice” and “no chance without years of prep.”
No shit anything worth paying a human for involves human skills. But some jobs are open to just about anyone who can put up with it, and some jobs kill people when you try to muscle through on sticktoitiveness. A fast food restaurant can bring some rando up-to-speed in a couple weeks. An ER cannot. The distinction is necessary.
Nitpicking the label misses the point:
All labor deserves a living wage.
It doesn’t fucking matter how difficult or complex a job is. If your business wants people’s time - you had better fucking pay them enough to be there next month. Otherwise, you don’t get to be a business.
All labor deserves a living wage.
It doesn’t fucking matter how difficult or complex a job is. If your business wants people’s time - you had better fucking pay them enough to be there next month. Otherwise, you don’t get to be a business.
All labor that delivers value in excess of the wage deserves a living wage.
I think unskilled there just implies no prerequisite knowledge required
That’s just entry level. There’s plenty of entry level skilled labor out there.
Because it’s unskilled.
I could walk into McDonald’s tomorrow and in a day have nearly every thing I’ll ever need for the job.
“Unskilled” and “requiring no previous qualificatuons” aren’t the same thing. Even “unskilled” labor can have many qualifications, even if most people would meet said qualifications. Hell, some people even don’t meet the qualifications for McDonalds for various reasons that are unrelated to skill. And similarly labor that requires no previous qualifications can still be labelled “unskilled”.
The difference here is that you can go into McDonald’s and learn on the job with little to no difficulty in the process.
“Patties are found in the freezer here. Go into the freezer, grab a box, put it here, take out and put 9 on the grill, grab these salt & pepper shakers and shake once overtop and then press this button; once it beeps it’s done and you throw them all into this warmer here.” Jobs been mainly taught and you can rock that for a whole shift.
OP is using McDonald’s as it’s pretty universal to know the basics of life on that part. Like how to press a button, what a freezer is, how to carry something and how to move objects without ruining things.
Go ahead and try to teach someone how to be a doctor/dentist with the same common knowledge. Or how to get someone to program an application when they only know how to turn on an iPad and open an app.
Difficulty is subjective. Like yeah, to me and most people the jobs labelled “unskilled labour” are going to be easy and being a doctor or dentist is going to be hard, nobody’s arguin that. But it gets a lot fuzzier when you start getting into seemingly low-skilled jobs which are put at higher value and labelled “skilled labor”, and seemingly high-skilled jobs which are put at lower value and labelled “unskilled labor”. This is especially apparent with manual labor (including some trades).
Plus it completely ignores the fact that things that are hard to one person can come extremely easily to another, and vice versa. Not every fast food employee can be a lawyer, but not every lawyer can be a fast food employee. Surprisingly, employers for “low-skill” jobs can be very picky with employees. And there exists extremely low-skill lawyers just like there exist extremely low-skill fast food employees. Same with teachers. The only difference in this case is that being a lawyer requires you to pay tens to hundreds of thousands for a degree, so the barrier for entry is artificially higher for poorer people.
Right now the case is mostly just that jobs considered low-value by society are called “unskilled labor” while jobs considered high-value by society are called “skilled labor” despite not being higher in actual skill used or required. Even disregarding manual labor, I wouldn’t consider my office job particularly high skill, it has a low barrier to entry and anyone could reasonably get a similar position with very little time investment, but it’s lumped into “skilled labor” just because it pays a lot and people don’t view it with a stigma like they do with low-paying jobs. Hell a lot of middle managers know absolutely nothing about the job of the people they manage, but they get labelled as “skilled laborers” anyways.
Difficulty has nothing to do do with skilled or unskilled labor. Skilled labor is labor that requires formal training and/or significant experience, unskilled labor usually entails on the job training that lasts less than a week.
What are the high skilled jobs that are labeled unskilled labor?
Farmworkers, custodians, construction workers, and similar manual labor are labelled as “unskilled labor” yet they generally require a lot of training to do correctly. And paradoxically other trades are seen as highly skilled jobs, despite requiring a similar level of experience or training.
Also in fast food training generally lasts more than a week. Idk where you got the “lasting one week” figure. And similarly, a significant portion of “skilled labor” jobs have no training at all (as I said, office jobs often don’t have any training whatsoever even for entry-level positions).
Different job positions of the same type or in the same field require different amounts of training, expertise, etc., and trying to generalize them into categories based on what one feels is right is pretty much just a method to demean/stigmatize certain types of labor.
And by the way, difficulty being subjective is relevant because someone who finds little difficulty in a certain area may take very little to no training to be qualified for a “skilled” job, while someone who finds great difficulty in the area will take much training to be qualified for an “unskilled” job. There are plenty of people who initially have trouble doing tasks that you and I think of as simple and requiring little skill. Many “unskilled” jobs require people skills too, on the account that they have to deal with the worst behaved humans imaginable on a regular basis and get around that. Those especially require you to have a lot of skill often times, not unlike how necessary communication skills are in some skilled labor jobs (a tech position may be practically entirely built around communication and the actual “tech” part matters little).
Entry level means something different for every field. An entry level cook and an entry level engineer have two different sets of expectations for the employee.
All of which are skilled labor
You are confusing chefs with cooks. Line cooks are hired with no experience or training, the same cannot be said for chefs.
You are confusing line cooks with dishwashers. No one hires a line cook that has no experience or training.
No experience necessary for line cooks.
You’re talking to an actual chef with over 20 years of hiring experience. You don’t hire line cooks with no experience.
It just means “no prior knowledge required”. It’s not a myth lol
Then why is it justified to pay people poverty wages? Your answer doesn’t cover that.
It doesn’t cover that because it didn’t cover that. You don’t have to address the totality of a situation to comment on it. Lemmy is particularly bad at this concept.
A comment is a comment, not a through rebuttal
Strawman fallacy. They (Dangblingus) tried to argue with a completely different topic to try and discredit the argument, without acknowledging the difference.
Edit: since everyone interpreted this wrong.
I guess you left out the brackets in the first version - I have to admit I misread it even then.
Only commenting to let you know that your edit succeeded in at least one case, no matter the points! ♥
Poverty wages are paid to workers that are highly fungible.
The concept of unskilled labor refers to tasks that require little or no specialized training or knowledge to perform. This can include manual labor or work that requires very basic skills. In reality, this type of work has existed for centuries, long before capitalism emerged as an economic system. For instance, agricultural work during the feudal era falls under the category of unskilled labor. Even today, there are numerous industries with high demand for such workers, from construction sites to warehouses.
Regarding the claim that unskilled labor is a “capitalist myth,” it’s important to note that while capitalism does promote a competitive market where businesses strive to minimize their costs (including labor), this concept has existed since the beginning of human civilization. It is not exclusive to capitalism. However, the extent of exploitation and the justification behind poverty wages might have intensified under a capitalist system due to private property rights and the profit motive.
When a business owner hires unskilled labor, they expect these employees to be less productive than those who possess specialized expertise or training. Consequently, businesses tend to pay lower wages to workers who do not contribute significantly to their profits. This notion may seem unfair to some, but it stems from the law of supply and demand. If there’s an oversupply of unskilled labor, employers have the upper hand in setting wages at levels that meet their needs. As a result, many workers accept lower wages because they lack alternative employment opportunities.
In summary, the existence of unskilled labor predates capitalism, and its association with poverty wages is not solely due to this economic system. The concept of unskilled labor reflects tasks that require little training or knowledge, which can be found across various historical periods and societies. Furthermore, the link between low-paid unskilled labor and capitalism arises from market forces that determine wages based on supply and demand. Thus, calling unskilled labor a “capitalist myth” used to justify poverty wages oversimplifies a complex issue that involves factors beyond the scope of any one economic system.
Idk man my labour is pretty unskilled, I think anyone could do it really (I’m a middle manager)
So you think a barista should be paid as much as a surgeon or nurse practitioner, both with more than a decade of education and correlated schooling expenses?
Can I have some of whatever you’re smoking?
True. That’s why I never did high grade studies.
