Seems a lot of the comments are focused on debating the word ‘skill’ applied to each job while another capitalist gets off free while infighting amongst people who should be supporting each other in a shit world that capitalism built and benefits off of.
Enshitification is where there’s a CEO somewhere that fucks everyone over and remains untouched.
That person really should be the focus of hate here.
Indeed, in a nominally free-market system, it would be completely irrelevant how much ‘skill’ is involved in a job. All that would matter for pay level is how much money the worker brings in. In an actually-free-market system, it would matter, because companies would have to compete on price, and they could lower their prices by paying less for skills available in abundance.
We don’t have a free-market system of any stripe. We have capitalism, in which the capitalists have been extracting record profits from the efforts of workers at company after company, while real pay has been stuck at the same level for decades. Neither he pay at McDonald’s nor the pay at Amazon reflect skill of the workers or the value they create for the company. It reflects only what the company can get away with.
Maybe it should be considered that the amazon worker in the picture would be able to go to his boss and say ‘I could go flip burgers at McDonalds for the same as what you pay me, I want a rise’.
They should absolutely take it upon themselves to go to their boss for their rise. Would be even better if they back off attacking someone who flips burgers and is allowed a living wage to do so. It is unnecessary to kick down.
A legal definition stating that special training/experience/certifications is required for that job, vs “routine” job functions.
For the guy at Amazon this could be fork lift certs, equipment certs, etc For the McDobalds worker this could be hazardous job training for chemicals, hot work, food prep/food handling training/culinary training, and maintaining the equipment.
Note, both could have job responsibilities “beyond the normal range”.
That is what is intended by the “skilled” description.
In a similar position, I’d consider myself a skilled worker in an unskilled role. I do work with hazardous stuff though, so maybe it is defined as skilled even though I didn’t have to go through hours of training.
In my case the role was considered formally as skilled, but demonstration of aptitude on the site and from past engagements was accepted at evidence of my having acquired the skill.
Seems to me like “skilled labor” is some job that cannot be quickly and easily learned by new workers. (Build me a shed is a little less intuitive than grill me a hamburger)
Some jobs need education to do and certain qualifications to know overall what needs to be done and when . Either way getting mad at someone for not having the same qualifications but getting paid a living wage is not an ethical basis for a grudge. And the most unethical person in the mix is ignored.
Seems a lot of the comments are focused on debating the word ‘skill’ applied to each job while another capitalist gets off free while infighting amongst people who should be supporting each other in a shit world that capitalism built and benefits off of.
Enshitification is where there’s a CEO somewhere that fucks everyone over and remains untouched.
That person really should be the focus of hate here.
Indeed, in a nominally free-market system, it would be completely irrelevant how much ‘skill’ is involved in a job. All that would matter for pay level is how much money the worker brings in. In an actually-free-market system, it would matter, because companies would have to compete on price, and they could lower their prices by paying less for skills available in abundance.
We don’t have a free-market system of any stripe. We have capitalism, in which the capitalists have been extracting record profits from the efforts of workers at company after company, while real pay has been stuck at the same level for decades. Neither he pay at McDonald’s nor the pay at Amazon reflect skill of the workers or the value they create for the company. It reflects only what the company can get away with.
Maybe it should be considered that the amazon worker in the picture would be able to go to his boss and say ‘I could go flip burgers at McDonalds for the same as what you pay me, I want a rise’.
They should absolutely take it upon themselves to go to their boss for their rise. Would be even better if they back off attacking someone who flips burgers and is allowed a living wage to do so. It is unnecessary to kick down.
Speaking of which, why is some waged labor characterized as “skilled”, and other not?
How has such a construct become entrenched, and in what context has it been utilized?
A legal definition stating that special training/experience/certifications is required for that job, vs “routine” job functions.
For the guy at Amazon this could be fork lift certs, equipment certs, etc For the McDobalds worker this could be hazardous job training for chemicals, hot work, food prep/food handling training/culinary training, and maintaining the equipment.
Note, both could have job responsibilities “beyond the normal range”.
That is what is intended by the “skilled” description.
I have provided labor to employers using specialized and advanced skills, though I had no formal credentials or training.
Was I an “unskilled worker”?
In a similar position, I’d consider myself a skilled worker in an unskilled role. I do work with hazardous stuff though, so maybe it is defined as skilled even though I didn’t have to go through hours of training.
In my case the role was considered formally as skilled, but demonstration of aptitude on the site and from past engagements was accepted at evidence of my having acquired the skill.
Seems to me like “skilled labor” is some job that cannot be quickly and easily learned by new workers. (Build me a shed is a little less intuitive than grill me a hamburger)
Is there value in characterizing certain kinds of labor as “unskilled”, and if so, who realizes the value, and who imposes the distinction?
Some jobs need education to do and certain qualifications to know overall what needs to be done and when . Either way getting mad at someone for not having the same qualifications but getting paid a living wage is not an ethical basis for a grudge. And the most unethical person in the mix is ignored.
All jobs may be described as you have done.
Again, who imposes such distinctions, and who benefits from such distinctions being imposed?
Sounds like you already know the answer to the questions your asking.
Some have considered such questions more carefully than others.
I am only suggesting everyone consider them personally, before anchoring to any strong opinions.
So long as you get hung up on the catch phrases, those will be the easiest goal posts that get switched.
Just watch, tomorrow it’ll be defined by ‘how much more dangerous’ a job is to create the same infighting rift.
I am only adding that it may be worth considering how particular catch phrases are utilized and become entrenched.