This is such a strange, nonsensical take to me. It’s not saying “these workers are good and those workers suck lol” - it’s just recognizing the fact that there are jobs that take years to develop the skills for, which has the consequence that (among others things) replacing these workers is incredibly difficult. And then there are jobs that take five minutes to learn to perform, where replacing workers is trivial.
You can put all the "period"s you want, but these different types of jobs objectively behave differently in the market - their differences have real consequences, which makes the distinction a useful one for describing market forces, whether you like it or not.
You accuse me of arguing semantics, but you’re the one insisting on blindly using your own definition of the word and ignoring the fact that other useful definitions can exist as well.
But, just to make you happy, let’s rename these terms to “Group 1 jobs” and “Group A jobs” (to avoid potentially saying that one group is better because they have a lower number or letter). In doing so, we avoid using your trigger word “skill”, and can still arrive at the same useful objective distinction as follows:
We can define “Group 1 jobs” as ones that require years of job-specific instruction to perform successfully, and “Group A jobs” as ones that require minutes or days of instruction to perform.
And, as we see, regardless of the name we give them, these categories still correctly predict the behavior of market forces, and are therefore useful terms.
Again, the point is that for the most part the names don’t really matter. We can call them “bloopity jobs” and “glorbo jobs” and get exactly the same predictions - I’m sorry that people have given these categories names you don’t like, but the categories remain descriptive and useful nonetheless.
No, the point of “unskilled labor” as a phrase at all, is to enforce the dichotomy that not everyone deserves food and shelter. It reinforces the notion that a person deserves less than livable circumstances because they are not as “skilled” as you. This implies you don’t deserve to live if you don’t help the bottom line go up. It’s ableist at best and completely dishonest the way you twist it.
No such thing as unskilled labor. Period.
This is such a strange, nonsensical take to me. It’s not saying “these workers are good and those workers suck lol” - it’s just recognizing the fact that there are jobs that take years to develop the skills for, which has the consequence that (among others things) replacing these workers is incredibly difficult. And then there are jobs that take five minutes to learn to perform, where replacing workers is trivial.
You can put all the "period"s you want, but these different types of jobs objectively behave differently in the market - their differences have real consequences, which makes the distinction a useful one for describing market forces, whether you like it or not.
No such thing as unskilled labor. Give me one example. You argue semantics because by definition, Labor takes skill. Even walking is a skill.
You accuse me of arguing semantics, but you’re the one insisting on blindly using your own definition of the word and ignoring the fact that other useful definitions can exist as well.
But, just to make you happy, let’s rename these terms to “Group 1 jobs” and “Group A jobs” (to avoid potentially saying that one group is better because they have a lower number or letter). In doing so, we avoid using your trigger word “skill”, and can still arrive at the same useful objective distinction as follows:
We can define “Group 1 jobs” as ones that require years of job-specific instruction to perform successfully, and “Group A jobs” as ones that require minutes or days of instruction to perform.
And, as we see, regardless of the name we give them, these categories still correctly predict the behavior of market forces, and are therefore useful terms.
Is that better for you?
The word your looking for is: qualifications.
Again, the point is that for the most part the names don’t really matter. We can call them “bloopity jobs” and “glorbo jobs” and get exactly the same predictions - I’m sorry that people have given these categories names you don’t like, but the categories remain descriptive and useful nonetheless.
No, the point of “unskilled labor” as a phrase at all, is to enforce the dichotomy that not everyone deserves food and shelter. It reinforces the notion that a person deserves less than livable circumstances because they are not as “skilled” as you. This implies you don’t deserve to live if you don’t help the bottom line go up. It’s ableist at best and completely dishonest the way you twist it.