Unskilled =/= Not Valuable

[Loren Pechtel]

"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.

Compared to those qualified to do the job there's a lot more demand for hedge fund managers.

Note, also, that with things like hedge fund managers small differences in ability translate into large differences in value to a company and thus large pay differences.

From your side again and again I hear that the worker should get a share of the value they produce--well, that hedge fund manager produces a lot more value than the waitress.

 

[ksen]

"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.

Compared to those qualified to do the job there's a lot more demand for hedge fund managers.

Note, also, that with things like hedge fund managers small differences in ability translate into large differences in value to a company and thus large pay differences.

From your side again and again I hear that the worker should get a share of the value they produce--well, that hedge fund manager produces a lot more value than the waitress.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-hedge-fund-geniuses-got-beaten-by-monkeys-again-2015-06-25

 

[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.

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.

The task is the task. It doesn't matter to the business what individual is doing the task.

I'd argue that the guy who cleans the bathroom at McDonalds provides more value to the company than just about any executive.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

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.

There is a segment of the unskilled labor force who cannot be easily replaced because they do offer something uncommon to employers. They are the ones who lower a business' employee turnover. The ones who can be counted on show up on time, put in a hard day's work and present your company well to the public. Bad attitudes and employee turnover is at a minimum a headache to a business that relies on unskilled employees and at worse can kill it.
Not all businesses can afford to pay more than their competitors. Profit margins are to thin. But in a business where the customer's perception can make or break you, unskilled labor is worth a premium.

 

[untermensche]

Really skilled labor is labor that runs a mortgage scam for years and bankrupts their business, wrecks the economy, and gets bailed out by the government.

That's when you are really valuable to the market.

The brilliant market.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

The task is the task. It doesn't matter to the business what individual is doing the task.

I'd argue that the guy who cleans the bathroom at McDonalds provides more value to the company than just about any executive.

That's easy to show to be false.

Let's say a McDonalds executive is in charge of 10,000 restaurants (or makes decisions that affect that many restaurants). If he is a good executive, he might add one and you have 10,001. Or if he is lazy he might drop the ball and lose one restaurant. Each restaurant has at least one guy cleaning the bathroom. So by minuscule difference in performance this executive could lose or gain one restaurant, and by extension, the value provided by that restaurant including the value created by the guy cleaning the toilets. Therefore the executive's worth is at least as important as the cleaner's.

 

[Jayjay]

I'm of the opinion that a person's value is the utility they can provide to themselves and others. You are your "job", but your "job" is not necessarily the same as your place of employment. Your "job" could be your family, if you are a stay-at-home mom or dad. It could be your friends, or it could be strangers you help out when volunteering for charity work.

In context of employment and economics though, it's fair to talk about value in terms of profit created for a particular company. In that regard, unskilled worker can be valuable, actually more so than a skilled worker, because you don't have to pay him that much. But usually the if some task is both easy to do (meaning you can find cheap labor to do it), and highly profitable (meaning you can charge a lot of money for the product or service it's needed for), it means there will be more companies doing the same thing in which case competition erodes the profitability away sooner or later.

 

[J842P]

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.

Because there are plenty of people who are willing and able to do it, in comparison to the amount of open positions.

 

[J842P]

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.

The task is the task. It doesn't matter to the business what individual is doing the task.

I'd argue that the guy who cleans the bathroom at McDonalds provides more value to the company than just about any executive.

Yes, but the business isn't paying a task - it is paying individuals. And while you and I might not like it, in the aggregate, people will pay other people the least they can get away with. You can get away with paying people less if there are other people around willing and able to do it.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The task is the task. It doesn't matter to the business what individual is doing the task.

I'd argue that the guy who cleans the bathroom at McDonalds provides more value to the company than just about any executive.

That's easy to show to be false.

Let's say a McDonalds executive is in charge of 10,000 restaurants (or makes decisions that affect that many restaurants). If he is a good executive, he might add one and you have 10,001. Or if he is lazy he might drop the ball and lose one restaurant. Each restaurant has at least one guy cleaning the bathroom. So by minuscule difference in performance this executive could lose or gain one restaurant, and by extension, the value provided by that restaurant including the value created by the guy cleaning the toilets. Therefore the executive's worth is at least as important as the cleaner's.

Hang on, then the executive's value might well be negative, whereas the bathroom cleaner's is always positive. And since executive pay is negatively correlated with performance, the bathroom cleaner might well provide more value.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The task is the task. It doesn't matter to the business what individual is doing the task.

I'd argue that the guy who cleans the bathroom at McDonalds provides more value to the company than just about any executive.

Yes, but the business isn't paying a task - it is paying individuals. And while you and I might not like it, in the aggregate, people will pay other people the least they can get away with. You can get away with paying people less if there are other people around willing and able to do it.

True. Funny how different people adduce the same thing as condemnation or rationalisation. But nobody thinks anyone's paid their marginal revenue product.

 

[DBT]

We have law degree graduates driving taxis because the number of graduates coming through the system exceeds the positions available for Solicitors, Barristers, etc.

Law firms skim the cream of the crop, or those with connections, and fuck the rest.

 

[bleubird]

What about farm workers? There is a shortage of workers right now. Wages should go up.but, the consumer will only pay so much for lettuces and tomatoes.The replacement pool is small.

 

[Tigers!]

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.

Roman slave market?

 

[Tigers!]

I'd argue that the guy who cleans the bathroom at McDonalds provides more value to the company than just about any executive.

Remember then to give him a huge tip the next time you see him.

- - - Updated - - -

Not Unskilled =/= Not Valuable
Rather Unskilled = different value

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

You can't live without air and water. Ought you therefore pay a lot of money for air and water, or is scarcity a factor?

 

[dismal]

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.

The value of their work sets an upper limit.

If you produce $10 per hour of value to an employer paying you $7.50 makes you worth hiring. If the government bans this voluntary transaction and sets a minimum wage at $15 you are no longer worth hiring.

 

[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.

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.

I agree. I would also think that providing money would have an impact on education and cleverness you mention. Poor people can't afford computers, books, internet, can't afford to take risks, and on and on. Typically, if you input money into any system you're going to see better outcomes. Is it a guarantee? Of course not. But if people have absolutely no means of upward mobility they're almost certainly not going to see any improvement. And they're also going to have malnourished children who are going to continue the cycle.

 

[ksen]

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.

This one of the dumbest posts I've ever read.

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

In construction the unskilled people that we hire are the Laborers. They sweep up, they shovel dirt, they carry things, they clean the site. In union work they are paid the least, but they are in the same trade union as the operating engineers and they are training to eventually become OE's themselves. OE's operate the cranes and the earth moving machines like the front end loaders, the bulldozers, etc., literally the machines that have automated the laborers work over the years.

There is a nice symmetry to this, when they are young and strong and stupid with bravo instead of judgment, they do the most physically demanding, lowest paying, non-critical jobs on the site. When they get older and more mature they move up to the least physically demanding, highest paying because they are the most critical jobs on the site, requiring concentration and knowledge that can only be gained through experience. Yes, not all of them become OE's, some stay laborers. Some become OE's but advance no further than operating backhoes or front end loaders. The best become crane operators.

But they all earn a decent wage, they all earn a wage based on their skill level. The last job I worked on was a Molybdenum (an element, Mo 42 a.w.) mine in British Columbia. The laborers earned about 17 CAN$ an hour (plus add ons) and the top paid to OE's was 38 CAN$ an hour (plus add ons). This was in 2007, the project was stopped by the GFC&R of 2008, when they lost their financing.