Ever seen someone doing their “unskilled job” all their life? It’s just fucking magic!

The truth is that capitalists hate skilled workers, because those workers have bargaining power. This is why they love the sort of automation which completely removes workers or thought from the equation, even if the ultimate solution is multiple times more expensive or less competent than before.

Nothing is more infuriating to a boss, than a worker that can talk back with experience.

  • PhilMcGraw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yeah, a jobs a job, it should pay a living wage at a minimum. I guess the difference is supply and demand. Anyone can stock shelves at a supermarket, making the employee pool large, meaning they can lower the wage and still get someone desperate.

    The government needs to step in and force companies to make that “lower wage” at least liveable.

    Although to be honest that may speed up the implementation of robot shelf stockers, which creates another set of problems.

    • Iceblade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      If certain jobs aren’t valuable enough to pay a living wage, then maybe they should be done by robots instead of humans.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The problem is there is a race to the bottom.

        E.g. in my field of work, there is a limited supply of skilled workers. If a company won’t pay my rates, I work for one that will, and the first is left short staffed. This creates a back pressure that helps keep wages reasonable.

        In “unskilled” jobs. The pool is far larger. Even if a job is worth a living wage, there is the risk of being undercut. 3/4 of a living wage is still better than nothing. This leads to a race to the bottom, that larger companies exploit ruthlessly.

        There are 2 viable solutions. You either manage a minimum (a “minimum wage”) , or you decouple survival from working by providing a baseline income (“universal basic income”). The first is simpler, but distorts the market in unhelpful ways. The second is harder, but let’s market forces actually work properly, and push wages up, where appropriate.

        • Iceblade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah, the way we do this in Sweden is pretty decent. There’s no minimum wage, but if you are unemployed you (A) have access to unemployment for a few months via your unions income insurance, and (B) if unemployed for a long time & do not have the means to otherwise support yourself will qualify for a basic subsistence support from your municipality along with housing benefits - on the condition that you keep looking for a job (if you aren’t disabled).

      • PhilMcGraw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Agreed, but I don’t think the world’s ready for that. We’ll probably let masses of people starve to death/resort to crime before we start paying people a UBI or an alternate arrangement that allows people to feed themselves when they are unable to find work.