Unskilled =/= Not Valuable

[ksen]

On some currently running MW threads there's been some conflation of "unskilled" with "not valuable".

This isn't the case but it's a neat rhetorical trick being pulled by our resident neoliberal opponents of a living wage.

If a business can't survive without unskilled laborers (what does "unskilled" even mean?) then those laborers are valuable to that business. And if they're valuable to that business then they ought to be paid like a valuable asset to that business.

 

[fromderinside]

Actually "unskilled" = "don't see need of education"

I'm not sure I want to reward these "don't want to be's".

Rather put money into increasing desire for everyone to get education.

 

[ksen]

Doesn't matter. The work they do is still valuable.

 

[dismal]

On some currently running MW threads there's been some conflation of "unskilled" with "not valuable".

This isn't the case but it's a neat rhetorical trick being pulled by our resident neoliberal opponents of a living wage.

If a business can't survive without unskilled laborers (what does "unskilled" even mean?) then those laborers are valuable to that business. And if they're valuable to that business then they ought to be paid like a valuable asset to that business.

"value" is subjective and personal. "unskilled" is really a shorthand term that means "does not have skills in high demand in the market".

You may place a very high value on your ability to pick your nose. But if no one else values this skill it won't make you much money.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't matter. The work they do is still valuable.

Way to go Captain Obvious. You have successfully argued that employers value labor.

Tip: that's why they are willing to pay for it.

 

[barbos]

Wallstreet monkeys are skilled, but are they valuable to a society?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Wallstreet monkeys are skilled...

Are they really, though?

 

[ksen]

"value" is subjective and personal. "unskilled" is really a shorthand term that means "does not have skills in high demand in the market".

You may place a very high value on your ability to pick your nose. But if no one else values this skill it won't make you much money.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't matter. The work they do is still valuable.

Way to go Captain Obvious. You have successfully argued that employers value labor.

Tip: that's why they are willing to pay for it.

"Does not have skills in high demand"?

Really?

Pretty sure there's more demand for waitstaff and janitors than there is for hedge fund managers.

 

[barbos]

Wallstreet monkeys are skilled...

Are they really, though?

Well, in extracting money from other people, sure.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It has more to do with how easily they can be replaced. If you can have Yokel McInbred wander in off the street and, within a couple of days, be doing the job as well as someone who has years of experience, then investing in your employees is an unnecessary cost which could be better spent on an executive membership at a local country club. It doesn't particularly matter if your employees are unhappy or if there's a high turnover rate because you're not losing needed skills when you lose employees.

The "value" in question has to do with value to the company, not their value as individuals. If nothing is added by having Employee A as opposed to Employee B, then you don't need to care about them and you potentially reduce shareholder profits if you do and that opens you up to potential lawsuits and getting disinvited from the more posh events around town.

 

[abaddon]

Doesn't matter. The work they do is still valuable.

You're saying "they" though it's about the wages of individuals. But that a company needs, say, 100 people, it doesn't make each of those individuals valuable. The reason an unskilled laborer is paid a small wage is they can be replaced in a day. So, having 100 workers might be a valuable thing but that Bob in particular should be one of them is not.

 

[dismal]

"value" is subjective and personal. "unskilled" is really a shorthand term that means "does not have skills in high demand in the market".

You may place a very high value on your ability to pick your nose. But if no one else values this skill it won't make you much money.

- - - Updated - - -



Way to go Captain Obvious. You have successfully argued that employers value labor.

Tip: that's why they are willing to pay for it.

"Does not have skills in high demand"?

Really?

Pretty sure there's more demand for waitstaff and janitors than there is for hedge fund managers.

Not sure what is going on in your head when you say this. Or why you think you have said something that has any hint of sense about it.

Do you actually have no independent ability to reason why the reason wages for waiters are generally low and yet LeBron James is paid millions to play basketball?

Is this just a completely baffling state of affairs to you?

 

[ksen]

Doesn't matter. The work they do is still valuable.

You're saying "they" though it's about the wages of individuals. But that a company needs, say, 100 people, it doesn't make each of those individuals valuable. The reason an unskilled laborer is paid a small wage is they can be replaced in a day. So, having 100 workers might be a valuable thing but that Bob in particular should be one of them is not.

I haven't mentioned individuals. You agree above that the positions themselves are valuable. Then why aren't those positions compensated as if they were valuable?

Retail stores, for example, can't survive without retail clerks. However the retail clerk position is generally the lowest paid.

 

[ksen]

It has more to do with how easily they can be replaced. If you can have Yokel McInbred wander in off the street and, within a couple of days, be doing the job as well as someone who has years of experience, then investing in your employees is an unnecessary cost which could be better spent on an executive membership at a local country club. It doesn't particularly matter if your employees are unhappy or if there's a high turnover rate because you're not losing needed skills when you lose employees.

The "value" in question has to do with value to the company, not their value as individuals. If nothing is added by having Employee A as opposed to Employee B, then you don't need to care about them and you potentially reduce shareholder profits if you do and that opens you up to potential lawsuits and getting disinvited from the more posh events around town.

See my response to abaddon above. I'm not talking about individuals.

 

[abaddon]

I haven't mentioned individuals.

Yeah, that's where your argument fails. So mention individuals instead of "they".

You agree above that the positions themselves are valuable. Then why aren't those positions compensated as if they were valuable?

Again, because if it's a low-skill position then any low-skill person can fill the position. So if Bob has the position and wants $15 to go on filling it instead of $10 and starts complaining, Bob can be replaced with Joe. A better tactic for Bob will be to make it more important to whichever company that they should get to keep him in particular and not easily replace him with Joe and thereby save themselves a lot of money.

So long as replacing an individual within any position is easy, talking about the value of all the positions taken together as an aggregate (of all the clerks in a retail store or whatever) doesn't matter unless they go on strike maybe.

 

[rousseau]

At the end of the day it comes down to the definition of what minimum wage should be. Unless we all agree on our end goals, there is no objective answer to that question, it's just a power/social struggle.

In terms of economic value this question is pretty clear, but I am of the opinion that providing your poor with money is a benefit to the economy and everyone in it. What is the alternative? Rich corporations? Who cares about corporations, they'll work themselves out.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wallstreet monkeys are skilled...

Are they really, though?

Reminds me of the old Academy saying they used to teach officers: Enlisted men are stupid, but they are sly and devious and bear considerable watching.

 

[abaddon]

At the end of the day it comes down to the definition of what minimum wage should be. Unless we all agree on our end goals, there is no objective answer to that question, it's just a power/social struggle.

In terms of economic value this question is pretty clear, but I am of the opinion that providing your poor with money is a benefit to the economy and everyone in it. What is the alternative? Rich corporations? Who cares about corporations, they'll work themselves out.

I didn't mean to come across as siding with neoliberals and against a living wage. It's just that I hear people who think they're "poor" (but actually are overspent) complain about "you're too expensive" and when I ask "How so?" they can't answer with anything that takes how reality is into consideration, their educations included nothing in how to conduct business (ie, how to live in the world). It always boils down to "I want", to a sense of entitlement mixed with victimhood. Nobody knows how to go about creating a better life, they just play the game as staged by the corporations and then complain about inequity and say "Gimme more".

It's not a good strategy to just "provide" more to the so-called poor (among most Americans, the better term would be "the less rich") so they can do better keeping up with the Joneses than what they're doing. They need an education (or stop being too damn stupid to figure it out) about how to live life skillfully, cleverly, rather than being given more money so they go on bungling stupidly through their lives but with more money in hand to do it with.

So, to summarize, "gimme more" isn't an inadequate response to society's inequities.

"... providing your poor with money is a benefit to the economy and everyone in it"

It's the word "providing" that I have questions about. But, yes, I do agree that if consumers had more so they could spend more it'd benefit business more than the focus on making sure businesses are "provided" with easy-to-get business loans and excess benefits.

 

[ZiprHead]

Doesn't matter. The work they do is still valuable.

You're saying "they" though it's about the wages of individuals. But that a company needs, say, 100 people, it doesn't make each of those individuals valuable. The reason an unskilled laborer is paid a small wage is they can be replaced in a day. So, having 100 workers might be a valuable thing but that Bob in particular should be one of them is not.

I've said it numerous times in these discussions. People aren't paid on the value of their labor. They're paid based on how easily they can be replaced.

 

[Philos]

I've said it numerous times in these discussions. People aren't paid on the value of their labor. They're paid based on how easily they can be replaced.

Zip,

I read this line recently, "All societies have been built on disposable labour." Can't remember where.

A.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

On some currently running MW threads there's been some conflation of "unskilled" with "not valuable".

This isn't the case but it's a neat rhetorical trick being pulled by our resident neoliberal opponents of a living wage.

If a business can't survive without unskilled laborers (what does "unskilled" even mean?) then those laborers are valuable to that business. And if they're valuable to that business then they ought to be paid like a valuable asset to that business.

There's an oversupply of unskilled workers. That's why they don't get all that much. If you want more pay, offer something not so common to employers.