Or save a Word doc as pdf.
Just think about it
Submitted 1 week ago by Mickey7@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/842a93d6-d197-4928-b280-6eb2de5edf48.png
Comments
tabularasa@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Norin@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I work in academia. I’m a lowly paid adjunct who teaches 8 classes across 4 schools to make ends meet.
In the lead up to this semester, each school has had a mandatory Zoom meeting to get everyone involved on the same page.
In all 4 instances, I sat there and fucking seethed watching people who make upward of 10 times what I do just endlessly fumble with the technology while saying nothing of value for 2 hours.
It’s honestly amazing just how inept the manager class is.
frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 1 week ago
In my experience only 20% of baristas are in fact skilled.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
If 80% of the baristas were on paid leave for severe burns I don’t think those companies would still be open.
Retail and hospitality workers have to have a number of skill sets just to keep from being fired day 1.
The number of people who refuse/can’t work a POS system and complain that people who can are unskilled is always a comical thing.
Most anyone I’ve met who calls any job unskilled is an idiot who thinks to highly of themselves.
Then again many people think support positions aren’t as important, and I tend to believe every position is a support position. Doctors support construction workers who support lawyers who support baristas who support salespeople who support hospitality who support entertainment who support plumbers who support IT members who support accountants who support banks who supports…
Joncash2@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Thinking about it makes the argument really really poor. If I’m a construction worker who spent decades perfecting my skills so I get promoted to management, now I have to hire someone else to take my previous position. The whole point of paying someone to do something should be because your time is better spent doing something else. So a very skilled person SHOULD be paying someone to get coffee. So the whole concept falls apart.
ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 week ago
This is based on the fallacy that people deserve to be rich because they are more skilled and work harder. In most cases this is not true. Most just use money to make more money. They don’t actually produce anything useful for humanity.
Joncash2@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
You understand that is a skill in and of itself. Which is why so many day traders end up going bankrupt. To be able to actually consistently make money off of money isn’t magical, it doesn’t happen automatically. If it did everyone would be far wealthier.
bradd@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I agree with your point that not all rich people deserve or have earned it but I think most people have, just based on personal experience and attention to this detail.
Look at the number of CEOs in the US it’s actually a pretty low number, I think <300K. Most people around and below CEO will need to compete in some way and most people serving coffee actually wouldn’t want to be competing in these positions anyway.
I recently thought, if we paid people based on a persons importance in society so many things would be turned upside down. Example, day care workers are very important to a childs well being and education and are paid so little. If you paid them much better it would create incentives and competition for those positions. The smarter more driven people who would not have considered the position at such a low wage would be drawn in and as a result the quality of education would improve. That same dynamic applied anywhere else would have the same effect.
Without an enforced rule like this, people who “deserve” more money might take jobs that don’t pay well, think education or research. You end up with open positions around CEOs, upper and middle management, that need to be filled that don’t require skills as much as say available and experience doing specific things like scheduling.
I say all of this as a boots-on-the-ground senior engineer who refuses to take a management role, could make more money by doing less and have people being me coffee.
cdf12345@lemm.ee 1 week ago
You’re missing the point. I don’t think most people have a problem saying there are different levels of skill based employment. Does designing a skyscraper take more skill than managing the lunch rush at a McDonald’s? Probably, but by saying working in fast food is an unskilled trade is propaganda to keep wages for those jobs low.
There is a definite skill for handling noon at a McDonald’s. Maybe it’s different than doing high level math for engineering but it’s not unskilled.
That’s where the issue is for most people that don’t like the punching down at “unskilled workers”
This is the same argument I have with my parents when they say that “unskilled workers” have jobs and not careers. And they use that as a justification for not paying them a living wage, “it’s not supposed to be a job forever” is usually the answer I get.
If you contribute 40 hours of labor to the country’s GDP, you should expect to be able to have shelter, food and medical care. That’s not asking a lot.
Creating a class of full time employees below that basic level is disgusting.
Dasus@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Does designing a skyscraper take more skill than managing the lunch rush at a McDonald’s?
I feel like it’d honestly be hard to compare, because it’s such a vastly different skillset/task.
It’s like the differences between writing a technical manual and wrangling a clowder of cats on crack.
With enough education, care and time, anyone could probably achieve the first (even if you suck at it, you can just do it again until it’s acceptable, there’s no rush), but even attempting the second takes a certain…je ne sais quoi.
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
If you contribute 40 hours of labor to the country’s GDP, you should expect to be able to have shelter, food and medical care. That’s not asking a lot.
That’s 1000% true, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are jobs you can do from walking in off the street with an hour or two of training, and there are jobs that you need more training/background/skills to do.
All full time work should provide enough for a basic standard of living. But arguing that there isn’t a difference in required skill between stocking shelves in an Amazon warehouse and say, diagnosing and treating cancer is absurd.
That’s going to significantly undermine your argument with a lot of people.
As far as your parents go, historically a lot of those jobs were populated primarily by high school students or people trying to make some side cash, and it wasn’t as hard to find employment in a more stable “career” job. The economy worked in a way where having dead end “starter” jobs still “worked”.
They just probably aren’t as aware of the fact that more and more people are getting stuck in those jobs due to no fault of their own. The idea is truly and utterly alien to them if they haven’t had to navigate job hunting since they started their “career” job.
The idea that people who didn’t make poor life choices are trying to survive off working at McDonalds doesn’t mesh with their understanding of how the world works. The idea that someone working at Walmart full time can’t afford to live without government assistance doesn’t seem real.
The last time they had to directly deal with that sort of stuff, no one was trying to survive that way because you could much more easily move to a job you could survive on if you just put in a small amount of effort. It might have been another shitty job, but options were there if you just looked. Not too long ago you could survive off Walmart.
All you can really do is to keep insisting that times have changed. Jobs aren’t just waiting for someone to ask to speak to the manager, and pay has not kept pace with costs of stuff increasing.
Trying to argue that a fry cook deserves to be paid as much as a skilled position will always be a non-starter.
Joncash2@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
That’s just not true. Resources are split based on value of work regardless of the actual skill involved. The whole unskilled labor argument is nonsense to begin with as you point out, everything is a skill. If any rich person is complaining about unskilled labor, I’d assume they’re complaining that the skill of the employee doesn’t produce the results required so the person is unskilled, not that the job itself is unskilled. For example, a rich person complaining that the unskilled labor at McDonald’s isn’t a complaint that the job requires no skill, just that either the company didn’t train the person right or the person is unable to attain the skills necessary. After all, if they did everything properly, they wouldn’t be complaining about unskilled labor to begin with.
Obviously, that isn’t going to stand true for every instance of unskilled labor. But what it seems to me is that you’re confusing the rich with the poor. People like your parents complain about unskilled labor because they don’t understand what the rich are saying. I see that a lot. But that’s like using people who don’t understand rocket science complaining about solar flares affecting rocket ships. It’s a massive misunderstanding between the scientists who are talking about solar flares and the common man who doesn’t understand.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If I’m a construction worker who spent decades perfecting my skills so I get promoted to management
Tell me you’ve never worked construction without telling me you’ve never worked construction.
bradd@lemmy.world 1 week ago
This is actually correct. I will say that these higher-ups are unreasonably dumb though. I work with a lot of them. It’s like they traded low IQ skills like wiping their ass with “high IQ” skills like being marketed to and going to conventions to find out how to generate synergy.
DragonsInARoom@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Who is complaining about unskilled workers?
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Anyone who doesn’t think they should get a decent wage.
DragonsInARoom@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Who is thinking that people shouldn’t get a decent wage?
FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Calling any labor unskilled is fraternizing with the weapons of the enemy, we don’t need it. Our greatest weapon is class consciousness and worker solidarity.
volvoxvsmarla@lemm.ee 1 week ago
It never made sense to me. You spent 1 hour of your 24 hours a day doing something you would not do for fun. Your 1 hour is just as long as my 1 hour. Both of us sacrifice the same amount of free time out of our lives doing something we’d rather not do. Why should we be paid differently?
If anything, the higher ranking the job, the more it allows for chatting with colleagues, going out for lunch, taking coffee breaks. You get much more “fun time” than labor intense workers do. Shouldn’t you be paid less? There is an added benefit in your job to begin with. The luxury of being able to sit and get coffee when you want to is already quite a blast tbh.
FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 1 week ago
True and, the inverse is the soul crushing monotony of the minimum wage job.
I think the ones that should be compensated more are those that society really can’t run without AND, are largely undesirable even with adequate compensation.
frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 1 week ago
In my experience only 20% of baristas are in fact skilled.