Something that gets across that it is not an ‘in demand’ labour, which is the real reason it’s low paid.
Similarly, we see astonishingly low wages for ridiculously high skilled work, for example scientists.
Maybe it’s really all about unvalued labour. Or surplus labour, as you say. While having rare skills is no guarantee for being valued, lacking those surely doesn’t help in getting more value either. So I think there is a correlation between unskilled and low pay, even if it’s not a direct cause.
It’s supply and demand. Scientists publish their discoveries to the commons, so there isn’t much demand for people to hire them. Many would-be scientists go into fields like finance and engineering specifically just for the pay (fields that are in demand, but have low supply). Science is a public good, so a market failure occurs.
“Unskilled labor” is labor that many can do or learn on the job, so there is a high supply. It doesn’t matter how hard or essential the work is, it’s going to be low pay due to the low barrier of entry. Which is unjust, and Why Socialism (Einstein) is needed.
In supply labour doesn’t have the same meaning to me when I say it out loud. That’s why I liked the term ‘surplus labour’ because it implies there is a surplus of people who can do the job, driving down how much people are paid for it.
That’s not surplus labor. Surplus labor is employed people who don’t have things to do. Or unemployed people who are able and want to work, if you’re taking about the market broadly.
And scientists are low paid at the start - and higher paid later, just like doctors and architects and plenty of people who have tremendous lifetime earning potential.
Scientists in academia are hit or miss wage wise, but have a high quality of life. Plenty of private sector scientists make $$$.
Yes, talking about is, not ought.
Similarly, we see astonishingly low wages for ridiculously high skilled work, for example scientists.
Maybe it’s really all about unvalued labour. Or surplus labour, as you say. While having rare skills is no guarantee for being valued, lacking those surely doesn’t help in getting more value either. So I think there is a correlation between unskilled and low pay, even if it’s not a direct cause.
It’s supply and demand. Scientists publish their discoveries to the commons, so there isn’t much demand for people to hire them. Many would-be scientists go into fields like finance and engineering specifically just for the pay (fields that are in demand, but have low supply). Science is a public good, so a market failure occurs.
“Unskilled labor” is labor that many can do or learn on the job, so there is a high supply. It doesn’t matter how hard or essential the work is, it’s going to be low pay due to the low barrier of entry. Which is unjust, and Why Socialism (Einstein) is needed.
Yeah I agree.
In demand labour makes sens as a term to me.
In supply labour doesn’t have the same meaning to me when I say it out loud. That’s why I liked the term ‘surplus labour’ because it implies there is a surplus of people who can do the job, driving down how much people are paid for it.
Thank you for supplying all this valuable context, honestly.
That’s not surplus labor. Surplus labor is employed people who don’t have things to do. Or unemployed people who are able and want to work, if you’re taking about the market broadly.
And scientists are low paid at the start - and higher paid later, just like doctors and architects and plenty of people who have tremendous lifetime earning potential.
Scientists in academia are hit or miss wage wise, but have a high quality of life. Plenty of private sector scientists make $$$.