• Link.wav [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    472 years ago

    Also, “flip burgers” is a bad description of how hard it is to actually work in food service

    You just know someone with a two-stall garage and boat who’s always had things handed to them came up with that shit

      • 🐱TheCat
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I think its about time to train employees and the cost of mistakes while they train.

        If the cost of mistakes is low, and employees can be trained relatively quickly, employers will exploit the fuck out of people.

      • metaStatic
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        because if the poors could save enough money to own capital they might stop flipping our burgers.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        Once you have the position to negotiate your wage you also have the ability to negotiate your workload.

      • @b3nsn0wA
        link
        fedilink
        162 years ago

        supply and demand. flipping burgers has no gatekeepers, natural or artificial, and lots of people are overall willing to do it, so workers are easy to replace and wages can be pushed down a lot. there are low skill jobs that are actually well-paid, but they usually involve way less savory stuff that fewer people like to do.

        of course, if a strong social safety net, or heavens forbid, universal basic income happened, way fewer people would be willing to flip burgers, while the demand for burgers would likely go up slightly, so people flipping burgers would get paid better, because a lot fewer people would want to flip burgers. hence the comparisons to the good half of europe where people flipping burgers get paid better.

        but the point is, when a job is easier to do, it’s because it’s gatekept in a way that some harder jobs aren’t. sometimes that’s due to skill, other times it’s entirely artificial. but a gatekept job can’t be a universal “hey, do that job instead” thing, specifically because it’s gatekept.

        ubi would be great because it would make it disproportionately more difficult to hire for hard jobs than for easy ones, but when the alternative is starving to death, a lot of people accept the hard job instead.

        • Link.wav [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          72 years ago

          The term low-skilled labor is classist propaganda

          But you are correct that this is how it’s perceived through the warped lens of capitalism

          UBI is not the answer. It’s just liberals’ way of propping up an inherently exploitative system

          • @b3nsn0wA
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            i don’t doubt that, but in this specific context “low-skilled” is synonymous to “easy to replace” and “easy to get into”. you can’t get a job as a doctor in a week if you decide to with no prior training, even if someone would hire you instantly, but you can absolutely go from having no clue about flipping burgers to doing it as a job in a week. (granted, if you can find a job instantly, which is not realistic, but that’s its own can of worms.) similarly, if your employer doesn’t like the price you’re asking, they can replace you in a week because if they’re willing, nearly anyone would be able to do the job to a sufficient level.

            “low-skilled labor” is absolutely used by some as a pejorative for both individuals and professions, and yes, that sucks. i also don’t doubt you can get extremely good at “low-skill” jobs. but even subtracting that elitism and classism, it has a meaning.

            also, if UBI is not the answer, how would you resolve this instead?

  • EnderWi99in
    link
    fedilink
    162 years ago

    The challenge here is the instructions were not very clear. All they said was go to college. They didn’t tell you what to study, and it turns out there aren’t a lot of jobs in medieval literature, gender studies, etc.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      172 years ago

      (probably not that) Hot take. But I think that not having everyone study STEM or “productive” (by capitalism’s standard) studies is a good thing for the world.

      Sure, philosophy doesn’t pay. But is the world better with, or without, people who study philosophy?

      • rumschlumpel
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        Depends on the quality of the philosophy and how dire the need is for people who learned immediately useful subjects.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      242 years ago

      Sure but it doesn’t explain why teachers need to flip burgers as a second job, or why doctors and lawyers are drowning under all the debt.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      17
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      How many people do you think majored in gender studies? The biggest field by far is STEM. Engineers, scientists, mathematicians/physicists, and IT still find it hard to find a job and are facing unprecedented layoffs.

      • Link.wav [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        52 years ago

        Also, gender studies is obviously a field we should be supporting more, given the prevalence of sexism in society and how many people are completely ignorant about the nature of gender

  • Rhaedas
    link
    fedilink
    562 years ago

    1980s: You could flip burgers to help pay for the college and not be thousands in debt at graduation.

  • hiyaaaaa23
    link
    fedilink
    52 years ago

    Sorry, we’re now have to pay off the equilavent of a mortgage in student loan, no we don’t want $7.25 an hour