• deweydecibel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    11 months ago

    Also, unskilled jobs still end up generating experienced laborers who are worth being compensated for that experience.

    • stevehobbes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The whole point of the term unskilled labor is that it isn’t.

      If you’re on an assembly line and you’re putting part A into box B, it takes an afternoon to learn and you’ll be about as fast as someone who’s been doing it for 30 years.

      Either part A is in box B or it isn’t. The difference between the best person and the worst person that’s still worth employing is very small, and probably can’t be trained.

      You don’t pay extra for someone with experience putting part A into box B.

      But they should be paid a living wage.

        • stevehobbes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s far more complicated, what is the ROI on the multimillion dollar robot to do pick and place, how long before a packaging or dimension change requires reprogramming, or you stop making part B and instead make part C that the robot needs to be adapted for. How much does labor cost.

          There’s a quite a few parameters to analyze, but it is frequently cheaper and makes sense not to automate it, and instead pay someone to stand at an assembly line instead.

          But then the whole automation thing…. Good for skilled labor (the people building and programming robots and automated assembly lines), not good for unskilled labor. If you’re not qualified or unable to learn another skill, it’s one more job that disappears.