this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
641 points (88.5% liked)

unions

1448 readers
322 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 31 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Does the label even matter?

When lots of people would do the job, and many even for less than you, why not hire someone else for less?

When you're the only one who qualifies, the situation reverses. Why bless that company with your work, when you can go to someone else who pays more?

Maybe it's all just supply and demand within the limits of regulation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I think calling it a surplus labour or something similar would be more descriptive.

Something that gets across that it is not an 'in demand' labour, which is the real reason it's low paid.

Note. I'm not saying it's right that it's low paid, just talking through the issue of why it is.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yes, talking about is, not ought.

Something that gets across that it is not an ‘in demand’ labour, which is the real reason it’s low paid.

Similarly, we see astonishingly low wages for ridiculously high skilled work, for example scientists.

Maybe it's really all about unvalued labour. Or surplus labour, as you say. While having rare skills is no guarantee for being valued, lacking those surely doesn't help in getting more value either. So I think there is a correlation between unskilled and low pay, even if it's not a direct cause.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's supply and demand. Scientists publish their discoveries to the commons, so there isn't much demand for people to hire them. Many would-be scientists go into fields like finance and engineering specifically just for the pay (fields that are in demand, but have low supply). Science is a public good, so a market failure occurs.

"Unskilled labor" is labor that many can do or learn on the job, so there is a high supply. It doesn't matter how hard or essential the work is, it's going to be low pay due to the low barrier of entry. Which is unjust, and Why Socialism (Einstein) is needed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah I agree.

In demand labour makes sens as a term to me.

In supply labour doesn't have the same meaning to me when I say it out loud. That's why I liked the term 'surplus labour' because it implies there is a surplus of people who can do the job, driving down how much people are paid for it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Thank you for supplying all this valuable context, honestly.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

That’s not surplus labor. Surplus labor is employed people who don’t have things to do. Or unemployed people who are able and want to work, if you’re taking about the market broadly.

And scientists are low paid at the start - and higher paid later, just like doctors and architects and plenty of people who have tremendous lifetime earning potential.

Scientists in academia are hit or miss wage wise, but have a high quality of life. Plenty of private sector scientists make $$$.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There’s tons of demand for unskilled labor. There’s also tons of supply because literally almost everyone can do it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

There's lots of demand sure, but the amount of demand doesn't outweigh the amount of people that are available to do it, like other jobs. This is why I went with the word surplus. There's a surplus of people that can do the job