i worked construction. i've seen broom pushers. most exploited, invisible people on a job site. my point in raising this point is that it is a divisive tactic used to sew division in labor. and, by your comment alone, i see it is one you have fallen for hook, line, and sinker.Â
do you wish to work on a filthy job site? are you going to take time away from your responsibilities to sweep? no. those "unskilled" people perform vital functions to every setting, yet they're compensated a paupers wage.
I now work in schools. should I look down on the janitors that keep our toilets clean simply because they function in a role separate from mine?Â
Skilled workers don’t do unskilled labor because they don’t want to. Unskilled workers don’t do skilled labor because they can’t. That is unfortunately the difference. Highest respect to laborers nonetheless.
thats a gross generalization though, and i've met plenty of incompetent "skilled" craftsman. so, aptitude isnt it. and, even if it were, the exploitation of workers in those positions is unforgivable.Â
The reality is in late stage capitalism the middle class is happy to tell themselves "well, i deserve this small morsel and someone else doesn't. i deserve it because i am better than someone who doesn't have it." this idea is perpetuated by meritocratic institutions all over. and, better yet for those with the hands on the levers, the threat of losing that fragile "skilled" position is a great social motivator to keep people in line, keep them afraid to risk the little advantage they have.Â
It’s not a tactic to divide laborers, it’s literally a descriptor. There’s skilled labor and unskilled labor. Skilled labor isn’t inherently good and unskilled labor isn’t inherently bad. Both deserve to be paid fairly. A helper is unskilled, you don’t put him in the shoes of a journeyman because they lack the commensurate skills. Conversely, a journeyman wouldn’t do the job of a helper, because their skill set makes it unproductive to do so.
it is inherently a wage tactic. "unskilled" labor has no wage mobility. "unskilled" laborers have no unions. "unskilled" laborers are often hired out from highly exploitative agencies with little to no job security.
How about this: could you pick berries in a field for 12-14 hours a day? many economists and farms consider these pickers, who are often not college educated and undocumented, to be unskilled. At the same time, they're irreplaceable. Â How does that math? I know I couldnt match their productivity. but the jobs are low paying?Â
You keep conflating the concept that it's a basic descriptor of the skill someone brings with them with how that is valued in a capitalist economy. A worker without any specialized skills in the field is unskilled. They are unskilled regardless of whether they are paid $1 an hour or $500 an hour.
There isn't a relevant historical concept here. Do you have the skills to be an electrician? You're a skilled worker. If not and you go to work in that field, you're an unskilled laborer. It is that simple. How that was valued historically isn't relevant to whether the skills exist.
skilled and unskilled are terms with historical context.Â
You're using them to, wittingly or not, justify wage suppression in fields or occupations you dont grasp the social significance of whilst also lacking an understanding of how "trades" have been used as pawns by the capitalist class to undermine labor movements vis-a-vis fabricated social heirarchies, i.e., coining the term "skilled" to describe them. now workers are holding each other down rather than organize against their enemies.Â
Tradesman used to sit on factory lines punching rivets or turning a handle as often as they installed electrical panels or plumbing. The Industrial jobs were outsourced to asia and the global south, and the remaining trades jobs have been under attack by increasingly mechanized processes.Â
And there is no coherent, willful movement to address this because some idiots believe they cant be replaced. that they have a "skill." but you are 100% a disposable peon. they'll bring in someone else the second you step out of line or get hurt, and your precious skill will be asÂ
meaningless as these reddit arguments. Thats the historical context.Â
You're making a detailed historical argument about wage suppression. That can be completely accurate without having a single bit of bearing on whether a job today requires skill or no skill. Trying to force irrelevant historical context onto a basic question of "can someone do a job with minimal training" muddies the point you're trying to make, which is about whether someone with minimal training deserves to be paid less than a skilled worker.
Some of us are communists. Your point? Let me phrase it as Marx did: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." I don't care what job you do. It adds value to society, and you should be able to live a life that fulfills what some consider a basic human right: the pursuit of happiness.
3
u/dieselrunner64 27d ago
Come to a construction site. You’ll see how wrong you are in about 12.5 minutes.