Every skill is different from every other qualitatively.

Skills are not related by any natural ranking from their intrinsic attributes.

Their distribution across society is not a natural consequence of their intrinsic attributes, but rather results from processes that are social, relating to accessibly and desirability for individuals receiving training.

Social processes are not natural, because they occur in society, not in nature.

I am sorry that you are feeling confused as you try to follow, but further simplification would be impossible.

As explained, I clarified the sense for which I invoked the term.

Beyond seeking such an answer, your question is not particularly coherent. No right is being asserted.

I invoked the term originally, and later clarified the meaning, which is not in my experience controversial.

How do you understand nature?

Care work is just about as useless and unskilled as any, taking as the guide how work is valorized under current systems.

deleted by creator

Irony.

Workers’ agency already has been removed.

Their accomplishments already are being plundered.

Otherwise, the discussion would not be occurring, and the conditions from which it emerged would be only fictional.

I am interested in criticizing the systems that have produced the disempowerment, and in building new systems that empower everyone.

You are interested on avoiding criticisms of the systems in which problems are occurring, denying the deeper structure of such systems, fatuously asserting their benevolence, and obstructing possibilities for transformation.

Your accusation about denying reality is dishonest.

You live beneath particular social systems sustained by ideals of a particular historic period, and refuse to see further, while deriding anyone even for trying.

I think the observation is that little or no broad difference emerges between training for providing skilled labor, versus simply providing labor that may be considered as unskilled. In either case, one provides labor, with or without the intention of developing skill, but certainly converging toward such an effect.

The meanings of terms are often determined and enforced socially through particular systems that carry power in society.

Between us, I am the only attempting to provide a meaningful contribution.

If you have one of your own, please offer it. Otherwise, stop making noise.

Listen. The topic is terminology and constructs imposing on workers a division, of some being “unskilled”.

You had suggested that such norms have a “logistical” (e.g. natural) utility, as for example of career counselors seeking to process cases more efficiently. Your repeated insistence that I have invoked an appeal to nature, even in spite of my denial, is dishonest.

I sought to challenge your representation of the natural utility for the construct of the “unskilled worker”, and your representation of its occurrence in society. Constructs are not equally helpful to everyone. Society has structure.

Capitalists organize the division of labor, the recruitment of workers, and perpetuate the wage system.

The term “unskilled worker”, obviously, is a construct reproduced by capitalists, toward the effect of marginalizing a cohort of the working class, and keeping the class divided and therefore disempowered, against becoming conscious of being oppressed beneath the wage system.

There is no argument to be won, or grand solution to be proposed. There is no value merely in subjecting the privileged to “bashing”.

Value derives from being critical over how society is organized, and the processes by which it is reproduced, and from seeking the opportunities for meaningful change.

Answers and solutions cannot simply be passed to you, as though on a silver platter. You need to think and to learn, to ask questions yourself, and to try to answer them, with an attitude that is critical, not avoidant or assured.

What is abundantly clear is that if you are protected the construct of the “unskilled workers”, then you are protecting capitalists, and harming the working class.

Even so, it is not robust to extrapolate a level of skill strictly from the frequency of error.

I would add, though, the deeper observation, that among the means of imposing division is the constructed distinction and terminology embodied by “unskilled labor”.

The concern for workers is not which worker belongs in which category, nor even which categories should be given and how they should be named, but rather, how to challenge both the distinction and also the processes and conditions from which it emerges.

I never inserted an appeal to nature, as you have insinuated.

I only asked you to consider the particular social organization in the particular societal context, and to consider how constructs and terms originally emerge and become entrenched.

I also asked you to consider that while social organization is supported robustly by natural antecedents, any particular social organization is not particularly natural, but rather produced from historical antecedents.

How is labor organized in our society?

Which group dominates the culture and language, relating to labor, and to other processes and systems, in our society?

Who benefits, and who is harmed, within our current social organization, from our current social organization?

Is our social organization collective, as you have asserted, or is it rather dominated by one particular group?

What particular practices would be better suited for organization of labor that is authentically collective, with effects more transformative than effects of mere quibbles?

Nevertheless, a worker who has been trained is a worker who has become skilled.

A worker who has been trained on a job site is worker who has become skilled in work at the job site.

The required rate of work is quite extreme.

If you are imagining yourself packaging items at home, or even as an odd job at your own workplace, then you may be forming a picture very different from one accurately representing labor at the warehouses operated by Amazon.

Some have considered such questions more carefully than others.

I am only suggesting everyone consider them personally, before anchoring to any strong opinions.

You have not been in fact particularly kind or charitable.

Nevertheless, please advise me over which terms I misused.

I will accept any correction that can be validated.

deleted by creator

You asserted a consensus had been formed.

Who participated in forming the consensus?

Did you participate? Are you benefiting from such a consensus? Would you be harmed by its being replaced?

Why is your tone so protective and forceful?