You're viewing a single thread.
Also, I'm not entirely sure that putting an item that a machine gives you into a box that the machine tells you to put it in requires more skill than working at McDonald's.
I don’t really feel great about making fun of the skill needed for low paid jobs. I’m sure it’s not as easy as it sounds.
Edit: there is a left leaning argument that the label of “low skill labor” is used as a cudgel to justify low wages. If you think it’s so easy, try picking fruit for a season. An experienced fruit picker with years of experience will be many times more productive than a newbie.
Both jobs are difficult and worthy of respect, Neither are what you would traditionally consider skilled labor.
It is worth considering how norms and practices become established, or as you say, traditional.
True. Though in this case it's pretty appropriate. Neither requires specialized education or training beyond normal job training.
While I am glad you opened with agreement, you proceeded then simply to sidestep my suggestion in the substance of your response.
I do agree with the general statement that norms and practices are worth examination after their establishment for continued validity. But this specific case isn't a great example of a space where such consideration needs a deep dive. But here we are.
For dividing kinds of labor, the difference between skilled and unskilled is reasonably satisfied by my definition. Such designations are logistical. A career advisor in high school probably doesn't have the time to delve into the nuance of work that requires further education (be it trade school, college, whatever) vs that which can be obtained with a high school diploma (if that) with every student (maybe not the best example, but lets keep moving). Skilled vs unskilled draws a useful, descriptive line for the sake of understanding. It also has the unfortunate effect of implying that skilled inherently deserving of greater respect than unskilled, which is wrong. I would hazard that it's a wider societal issue that we feel the need to rank ourselves, but that's a tangent I don't want to go off onto. There's an argument for a change in vocabulary to mitigate this (specialized vs general maybe?), but I would think that some terminology would arise naturally regardless as such categories of labor will continue to exist and need description.
Labor is not organized through systems that are natural, but rather through ones that are social.
Terminology is not emergent from systems that are natural, but rather from ones that are social.
You insist particular terminology is useful, but decline to consider carefully for whom it is useful, or for whom it may be harmful.
Do you think career advisors represent the group in society that benefit most substantially from the terminology you characterized as natural and logical? Do you think their work is truly being expedited by its use?
How could you conclude that the reason norms and values have become established is not worth considering for some particular case, despite the utility of doing so in general, while declining actually to consider the particular case about which your reached your conclusion?
First: natural != good. Mosquitos are natural, it does not make them desired. Save by bats. Try not to start with a fallacy. Things should be considered on their own merits, not because they are natural. Justify why natural is useful to your argument before you bring it up.
Humans are a social species, so social organization and terminology is a natural product of what we do as a collective. It's necessary. Redefining common terms every time you change jobs is inefficient (no comment on linguistics and the proliferation of language as a whole). While inefficiency doesn't bug most like it does me, it is still generally undesirable (for reasons, but do we want to source every thought? I have a life, more or less). I did note that it does hurt people. Right here:
It also has the unfortunate effect of implying that skilled inherently deserving of greater respect than unskilled, which is wrong.
I even proposed a alternate term pair, though with little hope that the same connotations wouldn't just attach themselves to those words. Humans are tricky fucks.
Ultimately, quibbling over words is really useless, because the words are a symptom of humanity's bad habits. We draw lines in the sand and decide who is more deserving of what based on those lines and our tribal instincts kick in and now those lines are the most important illusion in the world. If the lines weren't drawn with words, it would be something else.
Instead, let's treat people appropriately because they are people. Be sympathetic to both the fast food person and the amazon packer because those jobs are way more physical/emotional work than I do for my pay. And pick our battles better, because this pointless back and forth effort is very crabs in a bucket (which I am equally, if not more, guilty of) when we're on the same side.
My only real criticism for you (other than your argument to nature fallacy) is that you tore at my argument and never actually proposed anything yourself. It's real simple (not easy) to tear it all down, but it's not helpful. If you don't like something, don't just complain about it. Fix it. I fully appreciate the irony of that statement as made on the internet...
I never inserted an appeal to nature, as you have insinuated.
I only asked you to consider the particular social organization in the particular societal context, and to consider how constructs and terms originally emerge and become entrenched.
I also asked you to consider that while social organization is supported robustly by natural antecedents, any particular social organization is not particularly natural, but rather produced from historical antecedents.
How is labor organized in our society?
Which group dominates the culture and language, relating to labor, and to other processes and systems, in our society?
Who benefits, and who is harmed, within our current social organization, from our current social organization?
Is our social organization collective, as you have asserted, or is it rather dominated by one particular group?
What particular practices would be better suited for organization of labor that is authentically collective, with effects more transformative than effects of mere quibbles?
I'm cutting myself off here regardless of response for my own health, though I'll respond in good faith. Albeit with a bad attitude at this point.
The appeal to nature was implied. Don't bring it up if you don't want it to be part of things. Your argument would be better suited by saying "labor and terminology are socially constructed". Bears no implicit baggage. Also, see how I inserted something constructive? Arguments are not always to be won, but are often better for enhancing understanding, even if you feel like you're holding your interlocutor's hand.
You ask me a lot of questions without answering any yourself, which feels very bad faith. Especially when you're asking big societal level questions from a random person on the internet who has zero power to do any meaningful change beyond being nice to the people around me. I'm more than happy to bash rich white people (which most of your leading questions lead to) and you don't have to be a contrarian dick about it. Honey and vinegar my dude.
I'm not answering your bad faith spree of condescension. In the future, make your point and don't ask others to make it for you and avoid assuming that everyone else is dumb (which is how you come off). Just because a person doesn't list out all their reasoning, doesn't mean they haven't thought about it. You come of as militant and aggressive to people that are on your side, which is always bad.
I would actually argue that the workers at the burger place have the harder job, because they would actually have to deal with people more and people tend to suck on terms of respect for those in lower-income jobs
I would argue people should work both for a few years before arguing one way or another... xP
Amazon works you like a slave, and monitors/measures every move you make. It's a creepy, and a merciless environment if you cant cut it.
Also, and this is super important.
A lot of your work is performed in isolation. So while you dont have a "public facing" job, you will in fact feel the extreme opposite (depending on location, process, etc YMMV...)
Yep service industries jobs just really kill your humanity some days... if you happen to have all the asshole customers on same day you leave freaking pretty exhausted of a day serving shitty attitudedes.
If your boss is good he gives you one customer per year you can punch
I worked at BK in a dark time of my life. It was physically and mentally demanding. You had to memorize the order of every ingredient of every burger and assemble them in the least possible time and there were themed burgers or some shit so you had to re-learn from time to time. Wasn't exactly un-demanding mentally. From time to time I had to re-arrange big packages in the cold storage for hours. Fun times. Very hectic and demanding job.
It's not making fun of at all. Skilled jobs are the kind of jobs you need to learn a specific skill to do, E.g building contractor. Unskilled jobs are jobs that are simple enough that almost anyone can do, E.g. flipping burgers or packing boxes.
No matter what kind of job it is, the employee MUST be compensated for their work fairly and be given adequate measures such as annual or sick leave to ensure that they remain healthy while working.
I'd rather a system where an employee can vote their bosses out of the job so that the bosses end up working for the employees rather than the other way around. A salary isn't a gift and neither is labour.
Agreed