These jobs are low-paying because they're broadly unproductive. If some of them weren't doing these jobs, the wages paid for them at the margin would increase. We are vastly better off importing more skilled immigrants to high-income countries, compared to unskilled ones.
How can you call literally feeding the people “broadly unproductive”? It’s low margin, but you can’t have a society supporting your margins without someone doing the bottom jobs.
If we didn't have lower wage workers doing farm work food would be way more expensive and less diverse. I'm not sure how you judge the productivity of the worker...
They are skilled. Try taking the best and brightest out of Silicon Valley and put them on farms, orchards, and in construction, and see how well they do.
This elitist attitude that low-paid workers are "unskilled" workers is bullshit and needs to go.
As a software engineer who has done plenty of home improvement, gardening, automotive repair, etc, I think the best and brightest would learn quickly.
Now, let's take the average farmer, orchard worker, construction worker, and then chuck them into a software job. They wouldn't know where to start and wouldn't get anywhere without the same educational basics that 99% of developers have gone through. That's not elitist, it's just reality.
So, there's a clear distinction to be made and it's not necessary to water down every word in the English language because we're afraid of hurting someone's feelings.
I’m struck how you can’t see that both situations are exactly the same. Go to a strawberry field. Would you have any idea what to do as soon as you arrived? Absolutely not. No one is born knowing how to manage a farm from instinct. You’d need to learn how the farm works too.
I think the argument isn't "engineer" vs. "farmer", but rather engineer (or doctor, interpreter, commercial farmer/farm manager, industrial project manager, any other specialization that realistically requires years of training) vs. lower-skilled labor like farmhand, non-management/unspecialized construction worker, stuff that can be taught and learned relatively quickly.
I wouldn't call "low-skilled" workers _unproductive_ per se, and personally think they're incredibly valuable, but economically, the cost/difficulty of replacing a "low-skilled" worker is relatively low: it's a lot easier to find a replacement farmhand than it is a replacement farmer that manages the farm itself.
Picking strawberries is different than managing a farm. Imagine your 4 year old being a shot caller at the farm and how that might go. Would you have strawberries next season to even pick? Does your 4yo know how to sell thousands of pounds of strawberries?
Uh-huh. Let's see all those soft keyboard jockeys be efficient at hanging drywall and working on a roof all day long with no air conditioning in Texas or Arizona. They won't. They don't have what it takes.
Not all of us "keyboard jockeys" grew up soft and sheltered in big cities. The dry heat of TX/AZ isn't that bad compared to the sweltering humidity of the southeast ;)
I'm from the bayou. I know damned good and well what I'm talking about. Roofing and construction for a living is not the same as occasionally going outside and sitting around in the heat.
You're absolutely right that 'skilled' is merely a relative term and ultimately a social construct. But nonetheless, the fact remains that those skills are so much more abundant and are not soaked up by existing demand (which would drive wage increases at the margin).
It means, invariably, that they work positions that do not require high education. That's it. Any other euphemism in its place would just be in service of the same meaning.
