That’s fair and I don’t think I actually disagree with you in spirit, but there is a delineation between high skilled work (roles that involve knowledge and skill growth and regular continual learning/advancement/improvement) and lower skilled work (roles that involve doing the same thing day in and day out in a repeated fashion with no change or opportunity for advancement or growth). I’m not sure exactly how that would be described otherwise, it almost seems a semantic issue we’re arguing over more than a concept.
If not skilled and unskilled, or perhaps “highly skilled” and “low skilled,” how would you describe or define the difference?
for all your claims of not doing it to feel superior, you certainly use all the trappings of superiority. “Low skill ceiling” and “dead ends” eg.
Not superiority. I’ve lived it personally. I did those kind of jobs in high schoole and to work my way through college (ironically, I dropped out and never finished, moved into IT and got on certification paths instead). Many jobs ranging from deli and freezer packing, food service, restaurant bussing, groundskeeping, retail.
I’d describe them exactly as I did, low skill ceiling and dead end. When I was in those roles, that’s exactly how it felt, and I personally hated it. No chance for career advancement doing repetitive tasks where I had fully optimized my job to the point I could do it in my sleep and there was no additional way of improving process or invoking change either due to policies, stubborn management, or simply because it was already optimal and there was no better way to do it without automation making the job redundant.
When I say “low skill ceiling” and “dead end” it’s not an insult to people doing that sort of work. It’s simply a statement that if you do the job x amount of time, optimize, eventually you’re capped, and that time duration tends to be short. Someone in the role a few months is a “veteran” often due to turnover, but that doesn’t stop things from keeping on. The tasks are the same every day, the position has minimal or no growth opportunities, and the only opportunity for personal advancement is to quit and do something else. There’s only so many ways to mow a green, bag groceries, pack a package, or scan items and ring someone up at a checkout. Logic and/or creativity aren’t encouraged or required, the job is basically a checklist to follow.
Also, I do agree that those jobs should all pay a living wage regardless. Given the state of the economy and inflation, minimum wage should be more like $20 or more these days. Regardless of the supposed skill level of any job, anyone working full time should certainly be able to afford food, shelter, and general life necessities and amenities.
That’s fair and I don’t think I actually disagree with you in spirit, but there is a delineation between high skilled work (roles that involve knowledge and skill growth and regular continual learning/advancement/improvement) and lower skilled work (roles that involve doing the same thing day in and day out in a repeated fashion with no change or opportunity for advancement or growth). I’m not sure exactly how that would be described otherwise, it almost seems a semantic issue we’re arguing over more than a concept.
If not skilled and unskilled, or perhaps “highly skilled” and “low skilled,” how would you describe or define the difference?
Not superiority. I’ve lived it personally. I did those kind of jobs in high schoole and to work my way through college (ironically, I dropped out and never finished, moved into IT and got on certification paths instead). Many jobs ranging from deli and freezer packing, food service, restaurant bussing, groundskeeping, retail.
I’d describe them exactly as I did, low skill ceiling and dead end. When I was in those roles, that’s exactly how it felt, and I personally hated it. No chance for career advancement doing repetitive tasks where I had fully optimized my job to the point I could do it in my sleep and there was no additional way of improving process or invoking change either due to policies, stubborn management, or simply because it was already optimal and there was no better way to do it without automation making the job redundant.
When I say “low skill ceiling” and “dead end” it’s not an insult to people doing that sort of work. It’s simply a statement that if you do the job x amount of time, optimize, eventually you’re capped, and that time duration tends to be short. Someone in the role a few months is a “veteran” often due to turnover, but that doesn’t stop things from keeping on. The tasks are the same every day, the position has minimal or no growth opportunities, and the only opportunity for personal advancement is to quit and do something else. There’s only so many ways to mow a green, bag groceries, pack a package, or scan items and ring someone up at a checkout. Logic and/or creativity aren’t encouraged or required, the job is basically a checklist to follow.
Also, I do agree that those jobs should all pay a living wage regardless. Given the state of the economy and inflation, minimum wage should be more like $20 or more these days. Regardless of the supposed skill level of any job, anyone working full time should certainly be able to afford food, shelter, and general life necessities and amenities.