The internal struggle of the working class: how white collar (industrialization) turned on blue collar workers (manual labor) in its pursuit of riches
Blue collar work and white collar work have been defined by manuel labouring and dress. Cleanliness and affordability permitted white collar workers to distinguished themselves from blue collar workers. Just as in the middle ages, the poor worked barefoot in the fields while the wealthy ordered around bootstrapped. The differential was coined by Sinclair in the 30s but it does not hide its antagonism today. Marx argued that the emerging middle class would just create new classes and more oppression. The middle class did provide a new outlet to make more money out of the impoverished zones yet it did also leave the poor in their tracks. This white collar middle class has accepted Marx's threat and executed the removing of the poor tailies from the train.
White collar work is perceived as better. Following the line of argumentation that less manuel labour is better finds much agreement with medieval tropes. The wealthy had peasants complete their work. Keeping their clothes tidy and neat. The same can be said today for hiring a cleaning crew to furnish one's home. The ability to have someone do that labour for you while kicking back is a relief. Their services are necessary. The question becomes relevant when pawning off the job is due to riches or ignorance. Meaning hiring a cleaning crew can be construed as I can have someone do this for me since I can afford it or I need someone do this for me since I am swapped. The same goes for a babysitter. It is not so much wealth insofar as it is need. The more skilled jobs like a mechanic and electrician are inquiries that require learned knowledge. Riches may afford individuals but it is not laziness, its inepitude. The wealthy hire because they can but also because they can’t. Some wealthy are skilled and rather kick back let others do work for them like hiring a driver. Yet the desire to do so is to shift a burdensome load. No matter the chore, seeking an outlet is about desire for need. The more efficient and loyal the more credible and the more expensive.
Ignorance to the skilled market cultivates a unilateral discrimination against those who can do these jobs. The internet has made it easier to discern these issues but still require extensive knowledge. Though ironically the knowledge from the internet is educated by a skilled worker. While the knowledge is publicized it comes from a legitimate source. This can be can construed as an easier ride and thus needlessly relevant to society. Yet even a cleaning crew or a cashier if the intellectual capability does not require professionalism is still a necessary job. An electrician requires more schooling than a cleaner but the clear sidelining hourly pay demotes them. The lacked salary cuddles them in an inferior frame of categorical dementia. If the mode of pay is not like the others it must be because it does not require a full time image. Though this a governmental injunction, this becomes relevant in its individualistic persona instead of a company’s designation. Yet this issue follows into part-time jobs. Not all part-time jobs are created equal. Working varied projects will not require twelve hour shifts but it will require odd hours. Hours also do not meet the workload. Able to finish it faster does not mitigate capability. The model fails to apprehend the skilled nature.
While the superiority complex against a cashier is faced with educational incompetence and minimal salary, the same can’t be said of an electrician. The electrician spends years studying to amass said knowledge. Those who do it themselves these days are learning from professionals who have publicised their work. While this is occurring throughout different professions it is not always sufficient. Not only do law firms require law degrees but also passing the bar. Gas companies charge to plug in appliances or the warrently is lost. Even with the knowledge out, there is risky application to implement it. Open educational assets assist in learning new skills but those skills are not always welcomed in the professional world. Professionalism requires due payment even at the expense of validity. Knowledge of skills must be verified by a third party before credentials are authenticated. An even crazier example is the illegality to start an ambulance company past the monopolized or governmental companies. Unskilled humanitarian efforts are berated for failing to follow the proper channels society apparently enforces. Yet even through these proper channels some credentials are superior to others. This is not a blue collar problem but a hierarchical exclusivity issue. If there are levels in the white collar world even more so distancing from the blue collar.
Grave undesirability of these professions is not only from low pay but dangerous areas. Oil riggers or plumbers are professions that many pawn off to lower class individuals. They are cheap manual labor but nobody wants to do it. If anything they should be more expensive because nobody wishes to do them. Coal miners are another dangerous expenditure that make quite little. Yes anyone can coal mine but no one wants to except generational residents. The ability to profit off good folk who work dangerous jobs is truly crude. This was happening in factories years ago and instead of upping the pay for the disastrous conditions they simply ruled for better conditions with the same pay. Such an alternative preferred health. While some jobs became healthier many didn’t and those stuck in danger were ignored. Supply and demand is the staple binary causation of market economics. Oil is demanded and the limited supply make BP rich but not their workers in Omaha. Prejudice against uneducated labor is replaceable. Are they replaceable because there are so many spots? There are enough companies with a surplus of applications who make significantly more than the limited space for the unskilled practice. Unskilled undesirability is criticized for education instead of effort. Manual labor is not in any way easier just ask the nerd to play football. It isn’t a given that anyone could do it even if educationally qualified. The skillfully unqualified CEO’s make millions over their workers who do the heavy lifting.
There is a difference between independent workers and company workers but the same principle is in place. The perceptive inferiority is biased from afar. Specific qualifications are societally reinforced. More education gets one a higher paying job. Thus a PhD graduate should make more than a masters graduate but this is not always the case. The entrepreneurial world and social media has opened the door for dropouts to make old cash. Whether that is respected by society is a different story. Most parents would advise otherwise. Take the normative route play it safe. There is an option but afraid of failure it is ignored. Yet this was not a possibility in the past. The ability to eclipse the hierarchical economic forum was precluded on another’s generosity beyond the social standing. Jews and blacks were able to grow their businesses due to the openness of their oppressive excluders. A daring investment, now it is a matter of quotas and meeting the numbers. The gernerousity shown by a few pushed the ethical beyond the legal. Little by little the generousity fuelled into normative relations. The leap to dispair shifted history. Whether that generous individual be an owner or a buyer aided the discriminated folk. Today even with normative relations there is still issue not necessarily cultural bias but overqualification. The same rat hole has only expanded to include vast more people. All trying to squeeze into the hole; all trying to be accepted by the guard. The rat race has only funnelled the same inadequecy and limited opportunity. Even with new technologies the same hierarchy and demand thrives. Independent entrepreneurial elements due eventually lead to the same hierarchy the novelty permits more novel CEO's. Those individuals who youthfully scorned wealthy profiteering. The can turn the corner and change the paradigm. Will they turn over a new page or forget their former advocacy now with riches and power.
Some choose the blue collar life others are forced to it. With limited spots there is not much else people are capable of doing. Falling just short is considered a major failure. Yet for those who chose the skilled effort are lambasted for their niche job. While plumbing may not be a clean job, it does cover necessary items that many office workers could not accomplish. The level of responsibility and skill is way higher. The faulty comparison between the cashier and the plumber is deeply apparent. Though the biger question is where this has fallen off. When did skilled work become an evil. A cashier can be done by most people but not an electician. The average office worker is dubious to the intracercies of fixing an air conditioning machine. Even the IT individual who may make more money at the company then other office workers can be sidelined for unique work. Its the oddity of the job in the social conscious. It is not about the ease of a cashier or the simplcity of a janitor but the oddity of the tech support. Garbagemen make a pretty good salary but are looked down upon as an icky profession. These days people post cringe fifteen second vidoes to make a lot of money. Women post nude pics on only fans for millions of dollars when porn is free. People claim how lewd and deplorable yet are the buyers. Steve Harvey once joked (numerously) that he knew a barber who makes four million--buying other franchises but always finishing "he cut hair". The economic strain does little to bewilder the social perception of certain professions. Making it big is a fluke.
Acknowledging that while contempt may be from inferior wages, this is not true of teachers or police officers. Said professions make much less on salaries (depending on where one works). Though ironically, a sociology professor makes more for their research than a high school mathematics teacher. Well, since universities have an exuberant amount of money they can pay their teachers a fortune (even in public universities) while high school teahers get less. Their is a prestige to an academic background but that is for their research not their teaching capability. Since they have garnered status at the highest academic level they should make more despite their inferior educational ability. It is making money for the brand not the execution. Like buying the new iphone knowing there isnt much change. The issue is more with the lack of effort recorded. The market does not always entail the necessity especially with governmental intervention or outdated models of payment. Though the seeming obvious necessity of education and safety trump other basic needs of hazardous situations. It’s a value question.
No comments:
Post a Comment