Yeah, I always assumed it meant a job where the lowest level was accessible without training. Economists don't have a reason to distinguish between a job that w

Yeah, I always assumed it meant a job where the lowest level was accessible without training. Economists don't have a reason to distinguish between a job that will build skills versus one that won't, and I'm not sure the latter even exists. One example from the article was working as a caregiver. My brother worked as a disability carer while he was training to become an engineer. I was living with him at the time, and he started out with a baseline ability to care for others, no particular skills that an average person wouldn't have, and no qualifications other than a police check and a first aid certificate. He was essentially paid to drive people with mental disabilities around and not get frustrated with them. On the one hand, I get why someone with 20 years experience as a disability carer wouldn't want their job to be seen as something a uni student can pick up in a week. On the other hand, my brother could just go become a carer, so it's not entirely wrong.