• usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 months ago

    Depends what you mean by “unskilled labour”. Literally no skills? Yeah that doesn’t exist, and is impossible to exist as even the most simple of motor tasks like walking are learned and therefore “skills”.

    If by “unskilled labour” you mean jobs that require no formal training and your average person could be trained up well enough to not need to be constantly trained/supervised in a week or two? Then there’s lots of those. Maybe “low skilled labour” is slightly better but still a bit misleading (you still develop skills and improve in those jobs, it’s just you’re “good enough” at it in a relatively short period of time).

    Because capitalism, when you’re easily replaceable it means the employer can shop around more and find people willing you did the job for less so the pay is low. You aren’t paid by how hard you work, but by the “value” you bring and how hard it is to find someone else.

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      The problem is that you aren’t paid by the value you bring. We have to fight tooth and nail to get even a fraction of what we’re worth, even in skilled jobs, and there are many executives that realized that they’re better off instilling fear of firing into people than they are worrying about whether or not someone can be replaced. Hell, most of them don’t even have the barest respect for senior workers and will happily replace them with a less skilled, but also cheaper, worker to save a buck in the short-term.

      The concept of supply and demand in jobs has died because we lack the ability to enforce it. It’s completely fucked up. I heard someone say recently that it shouldn’t be a “job market” but a “labour market” and I fully agree. They need us, most executives are just dead-weight with money, so why the fuck do they get to be the beggars and the choosers?

      Ultimately, if we were paid based on the value we bring then CEOs wouldn’t be getting millions of dollars of bonuses while laying people off to try to keep their own worthless jobs for just one more quarter. If we were paid based on the value we bring then millions of essential workers would be in a much better position but instead they can’t even get raises that match inflation. Like, if your workplace doesn’t, at the very least, give you an inflation-based adjustment to your salary before ever even getting to a true raise then that place is taking you for a ride.

      • BluesF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Like, if your workplace doesn’t, at the very least, give you an inflation-based adjustment to your salary before ever even getting to a true raise then that place is taking you for a ride.

        Do places actually do this? Pay rises in line with inflation first? I’ve never heard of this :(

        • Soup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Basically never! My roommate’s did, which is super nice to hear, but when I asked my last place they told me “that’s not how inflation works” because they’re dumb as rocks and half as useful.

          In reality there’s no “cultural difference” nonsense, it’s just basic math, but most managers and executives are fragile, selfish men who never had to learn how to communicate their feelings or recieve even the lightest, most gentle criticism.

          • BluesF@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            It absolutely should be how inflation works. The cost of everything has gone up, right? That includes the cost of my labour. Or, well, it should.

            • Soup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              Precisely. Even in our broken system pay is directly associated with the lifestyle we believe that said job should merit and yet when that lifestyle gets more costly our salaries do not increase. It’s like, it doesn’t work in any fair manner and the way it claims to work is just there as an excuse to slowly erode the dignity of the people who just keep getting poorer each year while never actually doing anything in line with that claim.

    • thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Yeah, I’d argue ‘unskilled labour’ or ‘low skilled labour’ doesn’t necessarily mean you should be paid poverty wages.

      Imo that’s a regulation/policy issue, not a capitalism issue, but I’m happy for someone to talk me through why that isn’t the case.

    • Uruanna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s the point, the myth is always about “unskilled labour” and that’s specifically what pro-capitalist people believe - that low skill is the same as unskilled and low wages workers are “unskilled” and that’s why they deserve to stay where they are because they are brainless. And I am obviously above that, so you better not raise the lowest wages to the same as my level, it would be an insult to my skills that I totally have and they don’t. That is specifically the message and the brainwashing.

    • meyotch@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Draw all the academic distinctions you like.

      There is no such thing as unskilled labor.

      Face up to the fact.

      Don’t muzzle the oxen who is treading your grain. It’s the least you can do after taking his balls.