You're viewing a single thread.
All labor is skilled labor.
Yes, but some labor, like McDonalds fry cooks, is also skillet labor.
Well then some labor, like working in certain music industries, is also Skrillex labor.
Mom said to bring home some chicken nuggets.
What kind of fucked up centaur is this?
It's not a centaur, it's a leftaur.
All jobs are equal but some jobs are more equal than others.
On a more serious note:
Of course all labor requires some level of basic human capability and as such must pay a living wage. But there is very much a distinction you can draw, based on the amount of training required to perform a job accurately and safely without supervision, and how much background knowledge is required to go above and beyond the daily work, e.g. to respond to emergencies or to further develop e is ting procedures.What is the reason for such a distinction being constructed and becoming entrenched?
Who determines such processes, and who benefits?
Because it's a convenient way to talk about work. The collective of all who speak the language drives the process of word creation and definition and benefits from it.
The fact that companies pay workers too little is independent from this. I also don't think that the word itself is "weaponized" so to speak.
For whom is it convenient to discuss work, in the way work is commonly discussed, in our society?
Language both expresses and determines constructs and values in the society using and evolving the language.
Does everyone contribute similarly to language? Is everyone affected similarly?