• unfreeradical@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It was not implied that all labor is equal.

    Much to the contrary, every kind of labor is qualitatively different from another, and bound to skill that is qualitatively different from other skill.

    Several other contributors to the discussion have conflated various measures related to investment for acquiring a particular skill, with the skill itself.

    Skill is not a quantity, nor may it be quantified, nor emerges a natural ranking for skill of various kinds.

    • curiousaur@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes a ranking for skill emerges. It emerges from the scarcity and need for that skill. If a skill takes decades to master, there will likely be an inherent scarcity of masters. Those masters are obviously more revered and rewarded, and they should be. If a dunce in only capable of putting things in boxes, something that literally anyone, as well as some animals can do, then they are relatively worthless.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I already addressed your conflation of occurrence within a population for a skill versus its intrinsic attributes, in response to your previous comment.