Except it’s literally just an economics term referring to positions that can be reasonably learned through on the job training with little or no prior experience.
Stuff like this just muddies and distracts the conversation from the true issue, which is that those jobs deserve a living wage.
The whole point of the term unskilled labor is that it isn’t.
If you’re on an assembly line and you’re putting part A into box B, it takes an afternoon to learn and you’ll be about as fast as someone who’s been doing it for 30 years.
Either part A is in box B or it isn’t. The difference between the best person and the worst person that’s still worth employing is very small, and probably can’t be trained.
You don’t pay extra for someone with experience putting part A into box B.
It’s far more complicated, what is the ROI on the multimillion dollar robot to do pick and place, how long before a packaging or dimension change requires reprogramming, or you stop making part B and instead make part C that the robot needs to be adapted for. How much does labor cost.
There’s a quite a few parameters to analyze, but it is frequently cheaper and makes sense not to automate it, and instead pay someone to stand at an assembly line instead.
But then the whole automation thing…. Good for skilled labor (the people building and programming robots and automated assembly lines), not good for unskilled labor. If you’re not qualified or unable to learn another skill, it’s one more job that disappears.
Well don’t you think we should fix misnomers? Also, “it’s an official term” is a poor excuse. Terms change and evolve all of the time.
Tons of jobs can be taught with on the job training with little to no experience. There’s a reason unskilled labor typically refers to food service and blue collar work, while white collar jobs are typically considered entry level.
We can fix two things by the way. Complaining about multiple issues under a larger umbrella doesn’t “muddy the water.”
For the record, I don’t totally disagree with you, but don’t you think capitalists at the top would rather people spend their energy arguing about the economic terminology rather than fighting for workers rights?
They would happily call it just about anything if it meant not paying workers more.
A lot of jobs can’t be learnt on the fly. They either need prior training, or significant on the job or prior to work training. Those jobs will, by their nature earn a premium (basic supply and demand).
There will always be low skill jobs, and that’s ok. The issue is that they are now so poorly paid that you can’t survive on them.
E.g. an office janitor is an unskilled job. It’s easy to get a new person up to speed on-the-fly. A janitor on a medical ward is low skilled. They require more training, but it can be on the job. Cleaning a surgery theatre is a skilled job. It requires a significant baseline of knowledge to do it right. This requires off the job training.
None are bad jobs, and all should be paid well enough to live on. However, the more specialist roles should also earn more, since they have higher requirements.
So you’re saying training isn’t training? That’s a bold claim. Can you prove it?
And if you think an office janitor is an unskilled job. You’ve never met many good custodians. It’s easy for anyone to go into any field and do a shit job. But whether or not you acknowledge it. Being good at something takes skill regardless of what it is. Even the migrants picking fruit in American fields are highly skilled. Or are you telling me that in less than a single season or week you could match or better them?
I think you made a non-sequitur. They never said anything about that. Simply pointed out how all jobs require knowledge and training of some sort to be good at them. Perhaps in the future you should debate in good faith and not create straw men to push a false narrative.
You could hypothetically have on-the-job training for a surgeon, but it takes a lot longer and gets very expensive. That’s probably why they divide it up into pre-med, med school, internships, fellowships, etc. That and it means that companies don’t have to absorb all of the cost of training new surgeons. Maybe it’s not the ultimate solution to the problem since some doctors have difficulty paying off their loans. Unless you are in a highly paid specialty, you could be repaying your loans for many years.
If I were in the 19th century? Sure. We could still train them that way today even with all the knowledge we now have. It’s only the knowledge that’s outmoded. Not the method of training.
The method of training has severe deficiencies including the absence of standardization. Also surgeons still have apprenticeship they just have to go to med school first
The current method of training has severe deficiencies as well. Often saddling people with 6 to 7 figures of debt. And in the medical field specifically having them work shifts defined by people originally hopped up on meth and cocaine. I’d take a well rested and healthy surgeon any day over one that’s sleep/stress/drug addled.
Oh and there were literal trade groups that set basic standards most times. Listen it’s your prerogative if you want to argue training isn’t training. It isn’t a very defensible position however.
I don’t disagree that education should be free or at least affordable and at a reasonable pace, but I also stand by the position that an academic portion and institutional training are better than a training program without it.
But also you’ve moved from no such thing as skilled labor to adamantly defending apprenticeship which is a form of skilled labor training. Nobody who apprenticed is unskilled labor.
No shit, the apprenticeship is the exact thing we claim makes a difference.
We can argue where exactly we should draw the line: Is a two year apprenticeship required to qualify as skilled labor? Or is 6 months enough already? Maybe even a one month training course can be considered enough to learn a skill. But the fact is that some jobs require more training than others. And this distinction is worth making in some situations.
I worked in unskilled Labor before, a few minutes teaching so I know what to do, maybe two hours supervised to make sure I don’t fuck up and that’s it.
Said someone who’s never mastered it. I have a college education myself. And work in IT. I’m just not that much of an egoist to disrespect people like you do. I’ve met truly skilled and great people doing menial jobs and not being compensated enough. You wouldn’t last a week at most of these jobs. You feel you could master in an afternoon. Simply because you’d be dealing with people like yourself.
No one is claiming that it’s not possible to hone your floorsweeping skills over the course of 50 years and become a sweeper yoda. What they are saying though, is that the difference between the yoda and the apprentice is neglibile from a customers perspective. That’s just factual, if the apprentice wasn’t good enough for the average client, the yodas would be in high demand and be able to set their own rates, thus becoming skilled labor.
I don’t know why you think calling something an unskilled job is more derogatory than a menial job.
But can anyone learn your job in an afternoon? No.
You can replace a factory line worker with literally almost any human, you can’t be replaced by anyone who doesn’t have a background in IT, at least without months or years of training.
That’s not ego it’s just reality.
It doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a living wage. But if you’re gushing about how everyone is a skilled laborer while talking to someone who makes 1/10th what you do they’re probably going to think you’re a dick.
I don’t understand the need to dogpile on someone who is simply stating that jobs needn’t be divided by skill because all jobs need skills. Racking hay and stacking it up is a skill. Picking and sorting the good from the bad fruit or veggies is a skill. Interacting with mean and disrespectful people who couldn’t care less about your feelings and pretending to be friendly is a skill. Flipping burgers before someone yells at you for taking more than two minutes is a skill.
Obviously, their argument with the biochemist was wrong, and they were misguided, but why the need to pray on their downfall? It’s useless to divide jobs, because they all have skills.
Except it’s literally just an economics term referring to positions that can be reasonably learned through on the job training with little or no prior experience.
Stuff like this just muddies and distracts the conversation from the true issue, which is that those jobs deserve a living wage.
Yeah I don’t care if the jobs are literally no skill, that shouldn’t matter when it comes to paying a living wage.
Also, unskilled jobs still end up generating experienced laborers who are worth being compensated for that experience.
The whole point of the term unskilled labor is that it isn’t.
If you’re on an assembly line and you’re putting part A into box B, it takes an afternoon to learn and you’ll be about as fast as someone who’s been doing it for 30 years.
Either part A is in box B or it isn’t. The difference between the best person and the worst person that’s still worth employing is very small, and probably can’t be trained.
You don’t pay extra for someone with experience putting part A into box B.
But they should be paid a living wage.
deleted by creator
It’s far more complicated, what is the ROI on the multimillion dollar robot to do pick and place, how long before a packaging or dimension change requires reprogramming, or you stop making part B and instead make part C that the robot needs to be adapted for. How much does labor cost.
There’s a quite a few parameters to analyze, but it is frequently cheaper and makes sense not to automate it, and instead pay someone to stand at an assembly line instead.
But then the whole automation thing…. Good for skilled labor (the people building and programming robots and automated assembly lines), not good for unskilled labor. If you’re not qualified or unable to learn another skill, it’s one more job that disappears.
The only thing that matters is how many hours it takes up in a persons day.
And you don’t think the ruling class weaponizes the terminology to prevent wage increases?
people definitely use it in a derogatory way though
Well don’t you think we should fix misnomers? Also, “it’s an official term” is a poor excuse. Terms change and evolve all of the time.
Tons of jobs can be taught with on the job training with little to no experience. There’s a reason unskilled labor typically refers to food service and blue collar work, while white collar jobs are typically considered entry level.
We can fix two things by the way. Complaining about multiple issues under a larger umbrella doesn’t “muddy the water.”
For the record, I don’t totally disagree with you, but don’t you think capitalists at the top would rather people spend their energy arguing about the economic terminology rather than fighting for workers rights?
They would happily call it just about anything if it meant not paying workers more.
Which alternative term do you propose?
You’ve literally just described every job that exists everywhere. It’s a bullshit term to other and denigrate certain groups.
A lot of jobs can’t be learnt on the fly. They either need prior training, or significant on the job or prior to work training. Those jobs will, by their nature earn a premium (basic supply and demand).
There will always be low skill jobs, and that’s ok. The issue is that they are now so poorly paid that you can’t survive on them.
E.g. an office janitor is an unskilled job. It’s easy to get a new person up to speed on-the-fly. A janitor on a medical ward is low skilled. They require more training, but it can be on the job. Cleaning a surgery theatre is a skilled job. It requires a significant baseline of knowledge to do it right. This requires off the job training.
None are bad jobs, and all should be paid well enough to live on. However, the more specialist roles should also earn more, since they have higher requirements.
So you’re saying training isn’t training? That’s a bold claim. Can you prove it?
And if you think an office janitor is an unskilled job. You’ve never met many good custodians. It’s easy for anyone to go into any field and do a shit job. But whether or not you acknowledge it. Being good at something takes skill regardless of what it is. Even the migrants picking fruit in American fields are highly skilled. Or are you telling me that in less than a single season or week you could match or better them?
I think you’ve forgotten about pilots and surgeons and such… not exactly OJT material.
I think you made a non-sequitur. They never said anything about that. Simply pointed out how all jobs require knowledge and training of some sort to be good at them. Perhaps in the future you should debate in good faith and not create straw men to push a false narrative.
You could hypothetically have on-the-job training for a surgeon, but it takes a lot longer and gets very expensive. That’s probably why they divide it up into pre-med, med school, internships, fellowships, etc. That and it means that companies don’t have to absorb all of the cost of training new surgeons. Maybe it’s not the ultimate solution to the problem since some doctors have difficulty paying off their loans. Unless you are in a highly paid specialty, you could be repaying your loans for many years.
I’ll keep my surgeons having gone to med school tyvm
They literally used to apprentice them. They still could. They don’t but they could.
Do you want a 19th century surgeon?
If I were in the 19th century? Sure. We could still train them that way today even with all the knowledge we now have. It’s only the knowledge that’s outmoded. Not the method of training.
The method of training has severe deficiencies including the absence of standardization. Also surgeons still have apprenticeship they just have to go to med school first
The current method of training has severe deficiencies as well. Often saddling people with 6 to 7 figures of debt. And in the medical field specifically having them work shifts defined by people originally hopped up on meth and cocaine. I’d take a well rested and healthy surgeon any day over one that’s sleep/stress/drug addled.
Oh and there were literal trade groups that set basic standards most times. Listen it’s your prerogative if you want to argue training isn’t training. It isn’t a very defensible position however.
I don’t disagree that education should be free or at least affordable and at a reasonable pace, but I also stand by the position that an academic portion and institutional training are better than a training program without it.
But also you’ve moved from no such thing as skilled labor to adamantly defending apprenticeship which is a form of skilled labor training. Nobody who apprenticed is unskilled labor.
Lol sure. Are you ready to be an architect or a biochemist or an ironworker or a paramedic?
After a decent apprenticeship, a lot of people would.
No shit, the apprenticeship is the exact thing we claim makes a difference.
We can argue where exactly we should draw the line: Is a two year apprenticeship required to qualify as skilled labor? Or is 6 months enough already? Maybe even a one month training course can be considered enough to learn a skill. But the fact is that some jobs require more training than others. And this distinction is worth making in some situations.
I worked in unskilled Labor before, a few minutes teaching so I know what to do, maybe two hours supervised to make sure I don’t fuck up and that’s it.
An apprenticeship is enough to be a biochemist? Lmao go touch some grass.
Training is training regardless of how you receive it isn’t it? Perhaps you should take your own advice.
An unskilled job can be learned in an afternoon. That’s the difference.
Said someone who’s never mastered it. I have a college education myself. And work in IT. I’m just not that much of an egoist to disrespect people like you do. I’ve met truly skilled and great people doing menial jobs and not being compensated enough. You wouldn’t last a week at most of these jobs. You feel you could master in an afternoon. Simply because you’d be dealing with people like yourself.
No one is claiming that it’s not possible to hone your floorsweeping skills over the course of 50 years and become a sweeper yoda. What they are saying though, is that the difference between the yoda and the apprentice is neglibile from a customers perspective. That’s just factual, if the apprentice wasn’t good enough for the average client, the yodas would be in high demand and be able to set their own rates, thus becoming skilled labor.
I don’t know why you think calling something an unskilled job is more derogatory than a menial job.
But can anyone learn your job in an afternoon? No.
You can replace a factory line worker with literally almost any human, you can’t be replaced by anyone who doesn’t have a background in IT, at least without months or years of training.
That’s not ego it’s just reality.
It doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a living wage. But if you’re gushing about how everyone is a skilled laborer while talking to someone who makes 1/10th what you do they’re probably going to think you’re a dick.
I don’t understand the need to dogpile on someone who is simply stating that jobs needn’t be divided by skill because all jobs need skills. Racking hay and stacking it up is a skill. Picking and sorting the good from the bad fruit or veggies is a skill. Interacting with mean and disrespectful people who couldn’t care less about your feelings and pretending to be friendly is a skill. Flipping burgers before someone yells at you for taking more than two minutes is a skill.
Obviously, their argument with the biochemist was wrong, and they were misguided, but why the need to pray on their downfall? It’s useless to divide jobs, because they all have skills.