• drmeanfeel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    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

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      They also exist because there’s important differences to the jobs. For example, in how you hire. If you’re looking for “unskilled” workers, you can cast a wide net with the job ad and hit mostly the relevant audience. You can go up to anyone looking for a job and offer them said job. If you need a bigger pool of people to hire from, you can make changes that have almost immediate impact (e.g. increasing benefits, working conditions, marketing). For “skilled” labour, there’s fewer people in the pool to hire from, so you want to go directly to where they’re being trained (e.g. job fairs at universities or trade schools), and if you need to increase the pool you can hire from, that has delayed effects since you need to wait for people to go through their training.

      I was not aware of the negative connotation though, so I’ll keep that in mind. I don’t think changing the word itself is going to do anything about that though. Connotation will follow unless you change people’s attitudes towards these jobs. I don’t know how you would do that though. Any ideas?