Nope. Those are in large part degreed or certified jobs, all labor requires a skill. Ask a fish to take out the trash and you’ll quickly figure out my meaning.
Words have specific meanings. We have commonly understood terminology. You can’t just deny this fact through revisionism without seriously losing your audience. Check out the agreed definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skilled_worker?wprov=sfti1
I just want to add, no, not all jobs require skills. Some jobs only require you to perform tasks, the tasks do not require any skill. What that means is virtually anyone can do it with very little training. For example a cook at McDonald’s only needs to be trained for about 2 weeks and they can perform the tasks required for their job. Unskilled jobs are important for young people to help them earn a living while developing skills.
Economists separate out skilled from unskilled labour for many reasons including shortages. In a skilled labour shortage for instance, it may take many years to recover (ie: doctor shortage) whereas with a shortage in unskilled labour the gap can be filled very quickly if employers are willing to raise wages. Because of the distinct quality skilled labour has we separate it out as it’s own type of labour. You couldn’t just walk into the doctors office with 2 weeks of training and start seeing patients.
As an analogy we could think of commodities vs specialized products. One stalk of corn or barrel of oil is nearly indistinguishable from another one of its kind, whereas an iPhone can’t be replaced by a Motorola and still hold the same properties.
Your own source states that it was not a thing before 1800 and is largely used by fascists for classism purposes.
All jobs require skill, point blank period. Name one task that does not require a skill, your choice and we’ll use your example for further discussion. You’re explaining jobs that require less skill not no skill. You could be a doctor with no training, would you be a very good doctor? Probably not but that isn’t at all the point.
That’s not a relevant analogy worth even discussing.
I don’t need to debate you on this. The definition is there in Wikipedia. I’m not going to use pre-19th century terminology to describe the modern labour market just because it suits your political agenda.
Aww don’t take your ball and go home. Your using 1900s labor propaganda, referencing said known propaganda (even by your own source) and still not seeing that you’re wrong.
Nope. Those are in large part degreed or certified jobs, all labor requires a skill. Ask a fish to take out the trash and you’ll quickly figure out my meaning.
Words have specific meanings. We have commonly understood terminology. You can’t just deny this fact through revisionism without seriously losing your audience. Check out the agreed definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skilled_worker?wprov=sfti1
I just want to add, no, not all jobs require skills. Some jobs only require you to perform tasks, the tasks do not require any skill. What that means is virtually anyone can do it with very little training. For example a cook at McDonald’s only needs to be trained for about 2 weeks and they can perform the tasks required for their job. Unskilled jobs are important for young people to help them earn a living while developing skills.
Economists separate out skilled from unskilled labour for many reasons including shortages. In a skilled labour shortage for instance, it may take many years to recover (ie: doctor shortage) whereas with a shortage in unskilled labour the gap can be filled very quickly if employers are willing to raise wages. Because of the distinct quality skilled labour has we separate it out as it’s own type of labour. You couldn’t just walk into the doctors office with 2 weeks of training and start seeing patients.
As an analogy we could think of commodities vs specialized products. One stalk of corn or barrel of oil is nearly indistinguishable from another one of its kind, whereas an iPhone can’t be replaced by a Motorola and still hold the same properties.
Your own source states that it was not a thing before 1800 and is largely used by fascists for classism purposes.
All jobs require skill, point blank period. Name one task that does not require a skill, your choice and we’ll use your example for further discussion. You’re explaining jobs that require less skill not no skill. You could be a doctor with no training, would you be a very good doctor? Probably not but that isn’t at all the point.
That’s not a relevant analogy worth even discussing.
I don’t need to debate you on this. The definition is there in Wikipedia. I’m not going to use pre-19th century terminology to describe the modern labour market just because it suits your political agenda.
Aww don’t take your ball and go home. Your using 1900s labor propaganda, referencing said known propaganda (even by your own source) and still not seeing that you’re wrong.