Skilled labor is economics jargon. Skilled labor jobs are ones that if you are told someone does you’ll know more or less what they can do and what their job normally requires. All jobs require skills but skilled labor requires certifications of training and frequently takes years to earn.
Right but this argument is due to a conflict between economics jargon and everyday language. The people opposed to the term “unskilled labour” are unhappy about the negative connotations of the word “unskilled.”
The answer here being that unskilled labor is not derived from everyday language, and people who can’t conceive of that being the case are angry about it. And, by probability, are more likely to work jobs classified as “unskilled labor”. 🤷
I disagree. This is a term which exists simultaneously in economics and in everyday speech. The everyday meaning has negative connotations whereas the economics term does not. People are responding to this conflict by trying to get economists to change their term in order to avoid the negative connotations.
I, personally, don’t agree with this approach to language in any case. Linguistic prescriptivism of this sort is authoritarian and highly susceptible to backlash. It’s vulnerable to the mistaken belief that if someone accedes to an authority’s demands, they now agree with the authority.
Except when you see it in “everyday speech” it is still being used in an economic context. Try using skilled or unskilled labor in a sentence where you aren’t discussing economics.
Everyday speech in an economic context but not by economists. That’s the difference. Two surgeons discussing an appendectomy over lunch is different from two random people in a bar discussing an appendectomy.
They’re both using a term from a technical context but their understanding of the technical meaning of the term is different and the connotations are different.
Skilled labor is economics jargon. Skilled labor jobs are ones that if you are told someone does you’ll know more or less what they can do and what their job normally requires. All jobs require skills but skilled labor requires certifications of training and frequently takes years to earn.
Right but this argument is due to a conflict between economics jargon and everyday language. The people opposed to the term “unskilled labour” are unhappy about the negative connotations of the word “unskilled.”
The answer here being that unskilled labor is not derived from everyday language, and people who can’t conceive of that being the case are angry about it. And, by probability, are more likely to work jobs classified as “unskilled labor”. 🤷
To phrase this differently these people are taking a term from economics used in an economic context and responding to it out of ignorance.
I disagree. This is a term which exists simultaneously in economics and in everyday speech. The everyday meaning has negative connotations whereas the economics term does not. People are responding to this conflict by trying to get economists to change their term in order to avoid the negative connotations.
I, personally, don’t agree with this approach to language in any case. Linguistic prescriptivism of this sort is authoritarian and highly susceptible to backlash. It’s vulnerable to the mistaken belief that if someone accedes to an authority’s demands, they now agree with the authority.
Except when you see it in “everyday speech” it is still being used in an economic context. Try using skilled or unskilled labor in a sentence where you aren’t discussing economics.
Everyday speech in an economic context but not by economists. That’s the difference. Two surgeons discussing an appendectomy over lunch is different from two random people in a bar discussing an appendectomy.
They’re both using a term from a technical context but their understanding of the technical meaning of the term is different and the connotations are different.