When the term “essential worker” was coined, it made many of the people it applied to feel flattered. They were considered essential! However this is a misunderstanding of what a capitalist is saying. The term “essential” doesn’t actually refer to the worker. They consider the work essential. It is very important that those jobs are carried out. The worker that does it though is irrelevant, and considered fungible.
You know how corporations have a department called “Human Resources?” That’s exactly the mindset. Your job is essential, but you are expendable.
Never heard anyone be flattered when called an essential employee. Mostly they just say “if I’m essential then pay me more.”
A recent Unlearning Economics Live video had Cahal mentioning that it was pretty easy to identify essential workers, and if that’s the case we should earmark housing for those workers in the relevant areas. If it’s been so easy to classify them, there should probably be other similar accomodations (eg tax breaks) from a payment perspective.
Fuck earmark; appropriate from landlords; plenty of empty units.
Just steal 4Head
Easy enough. Set minimum wage for essential workers. (And raise minimum wage.) Declare a holiday for everyone for a month.
Everyone that works is essential.
I like your way of thinking.
Actually, Unions tend to do something similar with overtime and weekend pay.
If the factory needs you at night or in the weekend, they gotta pay up.
There is no such thing as unskilled labour.
Have you met any of my coworkers?
Of course there is.
You can criticize the way we name things, but the fact remains that the distinction between “skilled” and “unskilled” labour is a useful one and will continue to exist regardless of what you decide to call it. I feel like this comment is just a distraction from the real problem you intend to draw attention to, which I’m guessing is low wages.
Unskilled is the term they use to replace underpaid. So I think it is important to stop using it so people know what’s really happening. Unskilled implies that they don’t deserve a lot of money but that’s not the case at all.
Yes. The only unskilled labor is management.
It will continue to exist because it’s useful for the ruling class.
Terms like “unskilled labor” help the media do their job, which is helping capital convince the masses that the “unskilled laborers” are speaking above their station when asking for a livible wage.
It’s “burger flippers” for people who want to call themselves more politically literate. Language currently used to minimize and undermine.
It will definitely continue to exist, but acting like there aren’t connotations here or that they aren’t directly related to the “real problem of low wages” is wack
No, I’m criticising the fact that the term devalues both the labour put in by people, as well as devaluing the people themselves. You can’t deny that we as a society look down at certain jobs, both in terms of the jobs being unsavoury (handling refuse, cleaning, etc.).
I’m a software developer, my roomie is a truck driver. We don’t get the same reactions when we introduce ourselves and talk about our jobs. We don’t have the same wages or working conditions either. I have a fixed, yet relaxed schedule, and I can plonk around with my job more or less any time I feel like it. My roomie went to bed at eight today because he has to get up at three, by the time I get up he’ll have worked for four hours. He most likely won’t be home until five, about the time I close my laptop and start cooking, provided I haven’t already started that. Somehow I’m paid more. I’m perceived as more intelligent, and my work is held in higher regard, despite the fact that business grind to a halt and people go without food if my roomie doesn’t do his job. He doesn’t “just” drive from point A to point B, just like I don’t “just” stare at a monitor all day.
I see what you mean with certain jobs being perceived negatively. Maybe the messaging should be about the value of “unskilled” labour/labourers rather than saying that there’s no such thing as “unskilled” labour? To me, the latter implies that there’s nothing distinguishing “skilled” and “unskilled” labour. The only people who would understand what you’re really trying to say are those who are part of your circle spreading the “message”, and thus it only serves the purpose of saying “I’m on team X! Anyone else?”
No, when I say “unskilled labour isn’t a thing” that’s also precisely what I mean. The term indicates that you do not require any sort of skill before doing it; a literal infant could do it. As far as I am aware, no such labour actually exists.
Are we saying that certain labour requires formal education? Why wouldn’t we simply use a term reflecting that, in that case? I don’t have any formal education in software development, I am entirely autodidact. A profession born from too much free time and not enough friends. Now I’m a professional dev, making software that is core to operations to one of the biggest (in terms of GDP) corporations in my country.
Is my job then unskilled labour, or am I an unskilled labourer performing skilled labour? In which case, can the labour really be that skilled if an unskilled labourer can do it? If say a taxi driver helps deliver a baby, does that make obstetrics a non-skilled profession, or is it just the birthing part that doesn’t require skill? For that matter, my roomie did actually go through a one year course before he got his trucking license, does that make it a skilled profession?
It’s a nonsense term. Unskilled labour isn’t a thing; all labour require a measure of skill.
Everything requires skills, yes. Some skills take longer to acquire. It’s the difference between taking a random adult on the street and teaching them to perform a job within a week versus a year or more. Whether or not you’re self taught doesn’t change the fact that it didn’t take you a week to learn to code and it’s not something that’s part of a standard curriculum most adults would’ve gone through.
If you don’t think “unskilled” reflects this distinction properly, suggestions for alternatives are welcome. But I still think this is a distraction from the main problem.
Maybe specialized vs general labour?
There are jobs where you need to trust people to not abuse their power more than others, though.
This is something only doofuses playing semantic games say.
“Unskilled labor” is a term with an established definition: it’s work that you don’t need special schooling or training beforehand to be qualified to be hired to do, and also generally means that someone who is hired to do it can be fully trained to do the work to a satisfactory level within a month.
I work a job that can be taught to most people. Although you do need to be strong and be ok with a lot of travel. General dexterity and familiarity with hand tools helps immensely. I am also a college dropout. I have had very few of my trainees fail to last at least a year. I am so much, almost infinitely better at it than a new hire though.
The other part of my argument here is I coordinate constantly with people who have multiple certifications all the way up to advanced degrees. Every single one of them I’ve spoken to about it says that their work is roughly 90% learned on the job. To me this makes the certifications and degrees they earned 90% worthless, except that education got their foot in the door to actually learn the job.
We need an overhaul in the way we think about qualifications for jobs. I think college education is a wonderful thing that generally creates a more well rounded individual, and I am grateful that I was able to spend a few years doing it. But pushing people into massive debt so they have a chance to get their foot in the door for a better paycheck is fucking insane.
Every single one of them I’ve spoken to about it says that their work is roughly 90% learned on the job. To me this makes the certifications and degrees they earned 90% worthless
This is not sound logic. Those certifications and degrees are the baseline, foundational knowledge that make it possible for the job-specific knowledge to be learned.
To use a simple analogy, you can’t do calculus if you don’t know arithmetic first. But in a calculus class, you learn ‘on the job’ all-new stuff. That doesn’t mean the ‘certification’ of knowing arithmetic is worthless–without knowing arithmetic, it would be impossible for you to learn or do any calculus.
We need an overhaul in the way we think about qualifications for jobs.
This is a self-solving problem. If an employer puts too many or the wrong prerequisites ‘in front’ of a job that doesn’t actually need them, they will deprive themselves of X% of actually-qualified talent and the business will be worse off, versus employers who place only the appropriate (which in some cases, can easily be ‘none’) prerequisite(s) that are actually required for the work.
Dunno about that.
Okay give me an example of an unskilled job.
CEO
Indeed has a list of 15 jobs for people with no skills. I stopped reading at job #3 because they are completely ignoring the skills required of factory workers and dog walkers. Apparently people skills don’t count, neither does mechanical proficiency.
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/jobs-for-people-with-no-skills
Walmart greeter.
What exactly does a Walmart greeter do that doesn’t require a skill?
What skills are required?
Friendly demeanor, store knowledge, people skills in general.
Did you think about this for half a second, or did you just want to try and punch down?
If those are required then they’ve missed the ball in hiring in many cases.
Any time any worker drives past a “heroes work here” banner (which I still see sometimes), they must think “if you believe I’m a hero, pay me better”
I think that’s the idea. Heroes “do it for free”. You don’t see superman getting extra money from saving people. He holds a job. Same with Spiderman. Even Link has to pay rupees for his gear to save the world.
So businesses have figured out if they give you the praise of being a hero, they don’t have to pay you. Just like a superhero would never ask for money, you shouldn’t either, hero.
Billionaires are going straight to the boiler room of hell for the suffering they caused.
They know where they’re going, they already made their deal.
They don’t care
Maybe that’s why they’re all obsessed with living forever inside of a computer and then putting chips in all our brains?
Could be, they can “save” their souls that way perhaps
But who’s to say that the image of themselves in the computer will actually be them and not only a copy of them?
No one knows yet…
Not the same thing. An essential worker was somebody doing a job needed for society to continue. That includes both skilled (years of training) jobs and unskilled (a week or two at most before you can do it) jobs.
If their job is essential for the continuation of society, maybe we should pay them more?
No that money needs to go to coke addled morons with degrees in cognitive dissonance who spend their days fucking children and gambling in ways that can crash the global economy. Also ceo’s that make the worst possible decisions.
The problem is that ANYBODY can do it. Why pay a premium for grunt work?
People who feed you are doing grunt work? People who take your garbage away too? You gave just dismissed two groups of people whose jobs are vital to your wellbeing.
The problem with your thinking is it’s actually not thinking at all.
Yes. People who do jobs that take minimal training and who could be replaced in a week are doing grunt work. That’s the difference between skilled and unskilled. Do you need to go through years of training to do your job? Congratulations, you’re not as replaceable as the guy who was trained in 2 days by a high school dropout.
Except “nobody wants to work anymore” i.e. you can’t actually replace them that easily.
rice is essential. should it be more expensive than caviar?
edit: I misread more as in more than the non-essential.
That isn’t the argument. The argument is that they should be paid a living wage, not that they should be paid more than anybody else.
Although, what does a corporate lawyer, wall street gambler, CEO, or congressman really contribute to society? Except stimulating the therapy industry with all the kids they fuck?
ah I see. I miss read “more.”
I may have had a strong buzz at the time.
Ah, so you liken people you deem less than you to inanimate objects, cool
Not what the classist asshole who probably deserves the wall did here, and you know it.
That’s literally what he did, yes. You support Hamas so your opinions are invalid anyways.
I’m against genocide, and believe it should be stopped by any means possible as fast as possible, and the lives of those committing it should not be considered. They don’t necessarily all need to die, but enough of them need to die to stop it, and their lives are beneath consideration. I think ‘hamas’ are dicks who mostly don’t matter. They killed a handful of genocidal monsters, but they treat queer people like shit, so it’s about break-even morally. Doubt we’d get along.
Why are you bringing shit from other threads in here?
Because it invalidates your opinion on everything, imo. Shows a lack of critical thinking and shows you think you know more than you actually do.
Was McDonald’s and Starbucks really necessary for society to continue? And if it is: They should definitely be paid a lot more just for that, let alone the minimum necessary to survive (which they don’t get).
Are we really going to have this discussion again?
Skill is a measure of the amount of worker’s expertise, specialization, wages, and supervisory capacity. Skilled workers are generally more trained, higher paid, and have more responsibilities than unskilled workers.
No one cares what self hate you’ve internalized
So you’re saying middle managers are skilled workers? What is their skill? Because as far as I can tell, their main tasks are “motivating the work force” and “keeping everyone on track,” and unless they all have degrees in psychology, I don’t think that’s something they’re likely to have any sort of special skill in, do you?
