D&D 5E 5E economics -The Peasants are revolting!

[seebs]

Untrained hirelings are hired for menial work that requires no particular skill and can include laborers, porters, maids, and similar workers.

I just feel I should point out: Having had a housekeeper for a while and watched the expertise that goes into that? I would honestly not call maid "unskilled" work. Honestly true of a lot of labor in general, really.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I just feel I should point out: Having had a housekeeper for a while and watched the expertise that goes into that? I would honestly not call maid "unskilled" work. Honestly true of a lot of labor in general, really.

The term is generally used for jobs that don't require a long formal training to be executed satisfactorily (and can be done with a short period of instruction post-hiring). Certainly, not everyone would be able to do the housekeeping tasks well, but there is no shortage of people who already know how to do housekeeping (because houses are kept clean mostly without hiring specialized workforce), enough so that they can do the job at a basic level. It's not that housekeeping doesn't need any skill, it's that the skill is so prevalent that it's no longer a distinctive skill on the labor market. Same with reading and high-school level maths, or driving a car. It's obviously a set of skilsl, but since most people have these skills, it doesn't turn a job that requires being able to drive, or to read instructions (pick me at my house at 7am then drive me to my office) and to do basic calculation (I have a 40 liters gas tank, it is half empty, I use 6 liters for 100 km, can I drive 500 km without refueling?) into a "skilled" job.

It's probable that most of the readers here wouldn't be able to run a farm, so it might qualify as a skilled occupation in our society. But in a mostly rural, pseudo-medieval society, peasants are common enough that, despite having this knowledge, they would count as unskilled labor. Whereas anyone able to read and write would be considered skilled, while they are not in our society.

The designation doesn't imply a value judgement on the difficulty to do a job, it's a designation relative to the scarcity of the people able to do the needed task, on the job market: can they extract a better pay by virtue of holding this skill, and being rare enough that the supply of workers available to work at minimum wage doesn't satisfy the demand, driving wages up compared to other jobs.

 

[MGibster]

We also have a tendency not to credit the organizational capacity of poor/lower classes in history, reserving it as something that is learned say, in school, or in business, or in the capacity of employment. On the contrary, folks who're impoverished can be quite capable with management and developing networks, because of the necessity to do so; more so, they were able to do it with a lack of resources available.

Jean Foissart desribes those participating in Wat Tyler's Rebellion in 1381 as an unruly, brutish mob who released wonton destruction in London. But when you look at what the rebels actually did it paints a different picture. The rebels gathered in multiple areas suggesting prior communication, when they came across the king's mother on the road they taunted her but left her unharmed, upon entering London they burned down specific buildings associated with their complaints rather than indiscriminate arson, and when the king told them he heard their complaints and would address them they laid down their arms. Of course the king lied and executed the leaders, but the point is the "peasants" were organized and didn't act like they were out of control. Very demure. Very mindful.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

"Please don't be worried, we'll mindfully burn down a careful selection of buildings and try not to remember what happened in 1666, that was 15 years ago, burning building is extremely safe nowadays." -- A very civil uprising leader.

Wasn't Tyler a few centuries earlier, though?

 

[MGibster]

In our world, unskilled workers aren't totally unskilled, they'd count as scholars for the sake of being literate. Unskilled workers are people whose set of skills are so common they don't count as rare, so I think it's an argument to support the idea that farm laborers are mostly unskilled workers.

In the United States, unskilled labor is used describe any job that requires little education or training to perform at a satisfactory level. A construction site helper is an example of unskilled labor. These are the folks you might see at a construction site clearing debris, moving equipment, carrying materials, and may even help with installation or assembly of some things. Any able bodied person could walk onto a construction site and begin work as a helper with no special training or education and should be able to do a satisfactory job in a short period of time. It's more about the job than it is about the person doing it. I may have a PhD in Astrophysics, but if I'm digging a ditch I'm an unskilled laborer.

But it's difficult to compare modern employment standards to a quasi-medieval setting. I wouldn't count a farmer as the equivalent to an unskilled laborer. Agricultural activities including growing crops and caring for animals takes some skill if you want to be succcessful.

 

[MGibster]

Wasn't Tyler a few centuries earlier, though?

It was 1381 not 1681. Darn my fat fingers.