I like analogies so I’ll ad my own. Its like a leatherworker not knowing anything about how a hide is tanned. Or a tailor not knowing how fabric is woven.
It’s really really important to the trade to understand the process in which their base materials are created. They don’t need to know the exact skills of creating those materials to the degree of someone at a Tannery or a Mill. But it’s important to the work of both of those trades to understand the basic process. And really I don’t think a leatherworker or tailor could be considered to hold either of those titles if they didn’t understand the basics.
We don’t have that with modern tech. The materials and tools that modern workers use appear as complete black boxes to them. Like magical black boxes. And it’s honestly, a fundamental incompatibility with the incentive structures of existing economic systems that were forced upon a technology that should have made them obsolete in the 90s. But I digress.
Yes. And the last two comments actually touch on a fundamental problem with modern modes of production. It’s why you’re both correct. More specifically, the relationship of laborers to the actual outcome of their labor.
Yes, it’s a lack basic problem solving skills. Or really, any interest in solving the problem. But, humans are fundamentally animals. And like any other animal, we look to conserve energy if we can obtain the same outcome.
The “issue” is seen as an opportunity for a break. The workers are so alienated from their labor that a minor problem has no incentive to be solved or thought about in order to continue the labor. It’s the “not my problem” thinking that wage labor relationships create.
The worker is not getting paid less or more when the widget maker breaks at the widget factory. The widget maker broke. They don’t get paid extra to fix the minor problem with the widget maker. They actually now have a perfectly acceptable excuse to reduce their labor output and still receive the same wage. Which is the goal and relationship with any wage labor job. From the software engineer to the janitor. To get the most amount of pay for the least amount of work.
“Laziness” is what people call it. But, it’s changed since the days of hunter gathering. The relationship of ones labor is not connected to a social group. They won’t be given less berries or a less favorable cut of meat for being lazy. They get a wage. Their relationship that builds incentives is not with what is being produced, who is consuming that production, or even the workers they produce it alongside. The relationship at the end of the day; is with a wage.
“Laziness” in modern work structures is actually a worker being smart and optimizing for individual gain based on the environment they are forced to live within. As long as they can maintain their wage and expell less of their energy in mental or physical labor; they are doing what is best for them.
And they don’t even need to understand any of this. It comes naturally. It’s why so many modern day companies spend so much time trying to reinforce the idea of “we’re a family”. It’s why we all think “why the fuck are we doing this “team outing” that probably costs more than I make in a month?”
It’s literally all there to try to get your monkey brain to think the relationship at the company is “with the people” and not with your wage.
It’s with your wage. Take a break when the widget makers breaks. Take your time if your job is to fix the widget maker. Take as much time as you can while still remaining hired.
Do the least amount of work for the most amount of pay you can get away with. Oh, and unionize. You’ll see the widget maker will break down less often and get simple fixes as soon as their is solidarity among workers and not the illusion of competition. Though, unfortunately many unions are corporate captured. So you may already be working under that.