• @xxcarpaii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    61 year ago

    While I see your point that all labor has value, skills can be significantly more or less involved to learn and master. There are labor jobs that require certification or ongoing licensure to perform and those that do not. There are roles that involve the health and safety of others and those that do not.

    I think the skills involved between fast food and warehouse packing are probably pretty comparable overall, but a blanket statement of “all labor is equal” really doesn’t hold true.

    • @unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It was not implied that all labor is equal.

      Much to the contrary, every kind of labor is qualitatively different from another, and bound to skill that is qualitatively different from other skill.

      Several other contributors to the discussion have conflated various measures related to investment for acquiring a particular skill, with the skill itself.

      Skill is not a quantity, nor may it be quantified, nor emerges a natural ranking for skill of various kinds.

      • @curiousaur@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Yes a ranking for skill emerges. It emerges from the scarcity and need for that skill. If a skill takes decades to master, there will likely be an inherent scarcity of masters. Those masters are obviously more revered and rewarded, and they should be. If a dunce in only capable of putting things in boxes, something that literally anyone, as well as some animals can do, then they are relatively worthless.

        • @unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I already addressed your conflation of occurrence within a population for a skill versus its intrinsic attributes, in response to your previous comment.