No, it shouldn’t because this is an incredibly useful concept in economics which you would understand if you had taken economics courses.
Edit: to those without this background it is very useful to determine the stability of an economy if all the people with jobs that take years of training, which are skilled labor, suddenly start to flee as that suggests that the economy is collapsing.
Ive taken many economic courses, none of which talk about “skilled” or “unskilled labour”. They do, however, brainwash the fuck out of you into believing the post-scarcity capilist need for ever increasing profits not only makes sense, but is a necessary facet of society.
Yeah I don’t believe you have taken or at the least understood any courses in economics if that’s your takeaway.
Not learning about unskilled and skilled labor in economics is akin to claiming you didn’t learn what the Pythagorean theorem in geometry. It is extremely unlikely to be true that you weren’t taught this as it is very basic stuff.
It’s derogatory and innacurate description, workers aren’t a commodity. Having a college degree doesn’t mean you’re a specialist. You don’t have to have a certification or degree to be skilled. Economist isn’t a skilled job because you can’t predict the future, it’s a self fullfilling prophecy when you apply your own perceptions into descision making. Not everything is a predictable pattern.
No, it is not. It is a term in economics for specific jobs and it shouldn’t be responded to emotionally. It’s science.
Maybe consider that as you have no education in economics, as is evident by your claims that economists intend to predict the future rather than explained what has already happened, that your reaction is not coming from a place of understanding.
This isn’t intended to debase people and my own career is “unskilled” despite requiring years of “education” to do well (I’m in wine/liquor).
Ok so that’s a different subject you should look into namely “what does ‘science’ mean and what does and does not make something scientific” because you are totally wrong about this.
Again as you have already proven that you have no idea what economists do maybe you shouldn’t be taking definitive positions on this subject.
MIT offers their economics coursework for free if you care to actually learn it.
Just because it’s a term you learned in school doesn’t mean it’s not used to hold people back. The term is used to imply that people who aren’t skilled don’t deserve a living wage and lots of voters fall for it and push the narrative that if you flip burgers you don’t deserve to pay rent on time and go to the movies on the same month.
What a wild comment. You confirm that the phrase itself isn’t the issue, but rather how some people are misusing it for their own gain, and yet you manage to put the blame on the phrase itself.
What would you expect to happen if the phrase changed to something else? That people wouldn’t twist and change its meaning to fit their needs? Is your plan to keep changing the phrase each time it gets misused, eventually leading to a scenario where the phrase and its meaning are completely separate?
In scenarios such as this, its better to spread the word about the original intention of the phrase, rather than blaming it.
You are having a purely emotional response to scientific jargon. What are you trying to do here? Nothing you state is true within the context of the field.
You are having a purely emotional response to scientific jargon.
We’re humans who have emotional responses to things, and we should be cognizant of that when choosing our words. We should also be aware of how bad actors may use our words to manipulate public opinion via those emotions.
We don’t use things like mongoloid or crippled anymore even though they were once considered perfectly acceptable medical terms. Unskilled is inherently derogatory, and the thesaurus is offering alternatives such as fundamental, foundational, or generalized. I like generalized labor the best so far, because it contrasts perfectly with specialized.
It’s an emotional response to point out how a word has been used to keep people from being paid what they’re worth? I think it’s an emotional response to cling so hard to a word that could very easily be changed and hurt no one.
It’s an emotional response to point out how a word has been used to keep people from being paid what they’re worth?
No, why do you think that is the case? Most wages are paid out based on what the market fr that job pays not based on whether it is skilled or unskilled. My brother makes more in sales (unskilled) than my buddy who is a neurosurgeon.
I think it’s an emotional response to cling so hard to a word that could very easily be changed and hurt no one.
It’s scientific jargon. If you are having an emotional response to it that’s not the fault if the field.
No, why do you think that is the case? Most wages are paid out based on what the market fr that job pays not based on whether it is skilled or unskilled. My brother makes more in sales (unskilled) than my buddy who is a neurosurgeon.
Because I’ve heard people use it as an excuse for why minimum wage shouldn’t cover bills and they vote accordingly. Language matters.
It’s scientific jargon. If you are having an emotional response to it that’s not the fault if the field.
Scientific jargon can and has changed to better represent what they’re talking about no reason this can’t either unless that makes some people too… emotional.
Mate, this is very meta with the OP in a bad way.
Dismissing someone this way really goes against the values here. Not everyone had the chance to take higher education courses. And not having that chance does not invalidate immediately their views.
Which is exactly the point of the post: there is no such thing as unskilled labour. This label must die
that’s such a pedantic point
Well, I do respond in kind to dumb attempts at arguing
No, it shouldn’t because this is an incredibly useful concept in economics which you would understand if you had taken economics courses.
Edit: to those without this background it is very useful to determine the stability of an economy if all the people with jobs that take years of training, which are skilled labor, suddenly start to flee as that suggests that the economy is collapsing.
Ive taken many economic courses, none of which talk about “skilled” or “unskilled labour”. They do, however, brainwash the fuck out of you into believing the post-scarcity capilist need for ever increasing profits not only makes sense, but is a necessary facet of society.
I studied economics in college, currently looking for a job in the public sector, fuck profit
Yeah I don’t believe you have taken or at the least understood any courses in economics if that’s your takeaway.
Not learning about unskilled and skilled labor in economics is akin to claiming you didn’t learn what the Pythagorean theorem in geometry. It is extremely unlikely to be true that you weren’t taught this as it is very basic stuff.
It’s derogatory and innacurate description, workers aren’t a commodity. Having a college degree doesn’t mean you’re a specialist. You don’t have to have a certification or degree to be skilled. Economist isn’t a skilled job because you can’t predict the future, it’s a self fullfilling prophecy when you apply your own perceptions into descision making. Not everything is a predictable pattern.
No, it is not. It is a term in economics for specific jobs and it shouldn’t be responded to emotionally. It’s science.
Maybe consider that as you have no education in economics, as is evident by your claims that economists intend to predict the future rather than explained what has already happened, that your reaction is not coming from a place of understanding.
This isn’t intended to debase people and my own career is “unskilled” despite requiring years of “education” to do well (I’m in wine/liquor).
It’s not a science, it’s a cult.
Ok so that’s a different subject you should look into namely “what does ‘science’ mean and what does and does not make something scientific” because you are totally wrong about this.
Again as you have already proven that you have no idea what economists do maybe you shouldn’t be taking definitive positions on this subject.
MIT offers their economics coursework for free if you care to actually learn it.
I took econ in college and got a 4.0. It’s bullshit.
Just because it’s a term you learned in school doesn’t mean it’s not used to hold people back. The term is used to imply that people who aren’t skilled don’t deserve a living wage and lots of voters fall for it and push the narrative that if you flip burgers you don’t deserve to pay rent on time and go to the movies on the same month.
What a wild comment. You confirm that the phrase itself isn’t the issue, but rather how some people are misusing it for their own gain, and yet you manage to put the blame on the phrase itself.
What would you expect to happen if the phrase changed to something else? That people wouldn’t twist and change its meaning to fit their needs? Is your plan to keep changing the phrase each time it gets misused, eventually leading to a scenario where the phrase and its meaning are completely separate?
In scenarios such as this, its better to spread the word about the original intention of the phrase, rather than blaming it.
Good news don’t travel so fast. Changing the term to something harder to make derogatory would be a much better solution.
You are having a purely emotional response to scientific jargon. What are you trying to do here? Nothing you state is true within the context of the field.
We’re humans who have emotional responses to things, and we should be cognizant of that when choosing our words. We should also be aware of how bad actors may use our words to manipulate public opinion via those emotions.
We don’t use things like mongoloid or crippled anymore even though they were once considered perfectly acceptable medical terms. Unskilled is inherently derogatory, and the thesaurus is offering alternatives such as fundamental, foundational, or generalized. I like generalized labor the best so far, because it contrasts perfectly with specialized.
It’s an emotional response to point out how a word has been used to keep people from being paid what they’re worth? I think it’s an emotional response to cling so hard to a word that could very easily be changed and hurt no one.
No, why do you think that is the case? Most wages are paid out based on what the market fr that job pays not based on whether it is skilled or unskilled. My brother makes more in sales (unskilled) than my buddy who is a neurosurgeon.
It’s scientific jargon. If you are having an emotional response to it that’s not the fault if the field.
Because I’ve heard people use it as an excuse for why minimum wage shouldn’t cover bills and they vote accordingly. Language matters.
Scientific jargon can and has changed to better represent what they’re talking about no reason this can’t either unless that makes some people too… emotional.
There is a reason doctors don’t call patients the r slur anymore. even if it started scientific that is not at all how it is being used.
That is a way better example than I was planning on using if this kept going thanks
Mate, this is very meta with the OP in a bad way. Dismissing someone this way really goes against the values here. Not everyone had the chance to take higher education courses. And not having that chance does not invalidate immediately their views.
It does when we are speaking about terminology taken directly from a specific science.
You do not get to define how an academic field uses terms because of an emotional response derived from your inexperience with a subject.
Finally MIT literally offers all of this online for free and have for 10-15 years. If you want to learn you can.
Lol. Did I say “label” or “concept”? You would know the difference if you had taken linguistics/logic courses, but alas
It’s the same thing in both cases which you would know if you had a background in either of the subjects you listed.
Fun fact: it is not