• Spzi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    10 months ago

    Does the label even matter?

    When lots of people would do the job, and many even for less than you, why not hire someone else for less?

    When you’re the only one who qualifies, the situation reverses. Why bless that company with your work, when you can go to someone else who pays more?

    Maybe it’s all just supply and demand within the limits of regulation.

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

      I think calling it a surplus labour or something similar would be more descriptive.

      Something that gets across that it is not an ‘in demand’ labour, which is the real reason it’s low paid.

      Note. I’m not saying it’s right that it’s low paid, just talking through the issue of why it is.

      • Spzi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes, talking about is, not ought.

        Something that gets across that it is not an ‘in demand’ labour, which is the real reason it’s low paid.

        Similarly, we see astonishingly low wages for ridiculously high skilled work, for example scientists.

        Maybe it’s really all about unvalued labour. Or surplus labour, as you say. While having rare skills is no guarantee for being valued, lacking those surely doesn’t help in getting more value either. So I think there is a correlation between unskilled and low pay, even if it’s not a direct cause.

        • 31337@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s supply and demand. Scientists publish their discoveries to the commons, so there isn’t much demand for people to hire them. Many would-be scientists go into fields like finance and engineering specifically just for the pay (fields that are in demand, but have low supply). Science is a public good, so a market failure occurs.

          “Unskilled labor” is labor that many can do or learn on the job, so there is a high supply. It doesn’t matter how hard or essential the work is, it’s going to be low pay due to the low barrier of entry. Which is unjust, and Why Socialism (Einstein) is needed.

          • thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah I agree.

            In demand labour makes sens as a term to me.

            In supply labour doesn’t have the same meaning to me when I say it out loud. That’s why I liked the term ‘surplus labour’ because it implies there is a surplus of people who can do the job, driving down how much people are paid for it.

          • Spzi@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Thank you for supplying all this valuable context, honestly.

        • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s not surplus labor. Surplus labor is employed people who don’t have things to do. Or unemployed people who are able and want to work, if you’re taking about the market broadly.

          And scientists are low paid at the start - and higher paid later, just like doctors and architects and plenty of people who have tremendous lifetime earning potential.

          Scientists in academia are hit or miss wage wise, but have a high quality of life. Plenty of private sector scientists make $$$.

      • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        There’s tons of demand for unskilled labor. There’s also tons of supply because literally almost everyone can do it.

        • thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          There’s lots of demand sure, but the amount of demand doesn’t outweigh the amount of people that are available to do it, like other jobs. This is why I went with the word surplus. There’s a surplus of people that can do the job

      • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        So make a meme about education should be free. There will always be unskilled labor. I can show someone how to use a lawn mower in 20 minutes, or screw caps on a tube in an assembly line.

        I don’t need to pay someone extra to go to school for 4 years to do those jobs.

      • hightrix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        This is a pretty shortsighted comment.

        Never, in the history of the world, has it been easier and cheaper (free in many cases) to learn a new skill. Have you heard of this thing called the internet where there are thousands of free courses teaching anything and everything?

        • Cuttlefish1111@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Planting? That’s your example of a desirable skill? Free courses will get you nowhere financially or otherwise. You need verifiable certificates and licenses.

          • hightrix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Planting was a typo. Fixed that.

            For many careers you do not need certs or licenses. Almost every role in big tech can be self taught. Programming, SQA, systems engineering, business analyst, project management, and on and on can all be self taught. I say this as I work with a number of folks that do not have college degrees.

      • Spzi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I agree that would be unfair or however you want to judge it, but I don’t see how your conclusion follows.

        It does not matter if the acquisition of qualification is gatekept, subsidized, free or restricted. Either way, you have a pool of people who are qualified for a job, and that pool has a size. Smaller pool roughly correlates with higher pay.

        It’s supply and demand, regardless of why the pool has it’s size.

        I also think it has never been that easy to learn things. Wikipedia, YouTube, social media … sharing skills, following your interests, learning whatever you’d like to learn … imagine you had to ask your dad for permission or be accepted into a guild for it.