Strange, isn't it?

When the term "essential worker" was coined, it made many of the people it applied to feel flattered. They were considered essential! However this is a misunderstanding of what a capitalist is saying. The term "essential" doesn't actually refer to the worker. They consider the work essential. It is very important that those jobs are carried out. The worker that does it though is irrelevant, and considered fungible.

You know how corporations have a department called "Human Resources?" That's exactly the mindset. Your job is essential, but you are expendable.

Never heard anyone be flattered when called an essential employee. Mostly they just say "if I'm essential then pay me more."
Exactly, those terms are not mutually exclusive to corporate bean counters.
True. It also shows how most humans tend to think in social hierarchy where money and status are interlinked.
That's actually one thing capitalists (as you call them, I'd call them managers) are good at. Their focus on money allows them to ignore status.
This is also why workers need unions. Workers need experts that understand the inner workings of corporations to lobby on their behalf.

A recent Unlearning Economics Live video had Cahal mentioning that it was pretty easy to identify essential workers, and if that's the case we should earmark housing for those workers in the relevant areas. If it's been so easy to classify them, there should probably be other similar accomodations (eg tax breaks) from a payment perspective.

Fuck earmark; appropriate from landlords; plenty of empty units.
- Well that too, but it doesn't require legislative change.
- Just steal 4Head

There is no such thing as unskilled labour.

Have you met any of my coworkers?
- My coworkers probably say this about me
This is something only doofuses playing semantic games say.
"Unskilled labor" is a term with an established definition: it's work that you don't need special schooling or training beforehand to be qualified to be hired to do, and also generally means that someone who is hired to do it can be fully trained to do the work to a satisfactory level within a month.
- And you absolutely do get better at the job over time. A seasoned employee doing nearly anything is better at it if they've done it a few years.
- I work a job that can be taught to most people. Although you do need to be strong and be ok with a lot of travel. General dexterity and familiarity with hand tools helps immensely. I am also a college dropout. I have had very few of my trainees fail to last at least a year. I am so much, almost infinitely better at it than a new hire though.
  The other part of my argument here is I coordinate constantly with people who have multiple certifications all the way up to advanced degrees. Every single one of them I've spoken to about it says that their work is roughly 90% learned on the job. To me this makes the certifications and degrees they earned 90% worthless, except that education got their foot in the door to actually learn the job.
  We need an overhaul in the way we think about qualifications for jobs. I think college education is a wonderful thing that generally creates a more well rounded individual, and I am grateful that I was able to spend a few years doing it. But pushing people into massive debt so they have a chance to get their foot in the door for a better paycheck is fucking insane.
There are jobs where you need to trust people to not abuse their power more than others, though.
Of course there is.
- There is, but it's not very common. Probably between 1% - 5% tops.
You can criticize the way we name things, but the fact remains that the distinction between "skilled" and "unskilled" labour is a useful one and will continue to exist regardless of what you decide to call it. I feel like this comment is just a distraction from the real problem you intend to draw attention to, which I'm guessing is low wages.
- It will continue to exist because it's useful for the ruling class.
  Terms like "unskilled labor" help the media do their job, which is helping capital convince the masses that the "unskilled laborers" are speaking above their station when asking for a livible wage.
  It's "burger flippers" for people who want to call themselves more politically literate. Language currently used to minimize and undermine.
  It will definitely continue to exist, but acting like there aren't connotations here or that they aren't directly related to the "real problem of low wages" is wack
- No, I'm criticising the fact that the term devalues both the labour put in by people, as well as devaluing the people themselves. You can't deny that we as a society look down at certain jobs, both in terms of the jobs being unsavoury (handling refuse, cleaning, etc.).
  I'm a software developer, my roomie is a truck driver. We don't get the same reactions when we introduce ourselves and talk about our jobs. We don't have the same wages or working conditions either. I have a fixed, yet relaxed schedule, and I can plonk around with my job more or less any time I feel like it. My roomie went to bed at eight today because he has to get up at three, by the time I get up he'll have worked for four hours. He most likely won't be home until five, about the time I close my laptop and start cooking, provided I haven't already started that. Somehow I'm paid more. I'm perceived as more intelligent, and my work is held in higher regard, despite the fact that business grind to a halt and people go without food if my roomie doesn't do his job. He doesn't "just" drive from point A to point B, just like I don't "just" stare at a monitor all day.
- Unskilled is the term they use to replace underpaid. So I think it is important to stop using it so people know what's really happening. Unskilled implies that they don't deserve a lot of money but that's not the case at all.
- Yes. The only unskilled labor is management.
Dunno about that.

Easy enough. Set minimum wage for essential workers. (And raise minimum wage.) Declare a holiday for everyone for a month.

Everyone that works is essential.

I like your way of thinking.
Actually, Unions tend to do something similar with overtime and weekend pay.
If the factory needs you at night or in the weekend, they gotta pay up.

They know where they're going, they already made their deal.
They don't care

No, no, no, you misunderstood. Essential doesn't mean highly paid. They are the suckers who are left doing the dirty work that keeps high society moving but of course they'll get the lowest possible wage if they can be replaced easily.

We really need to fuck with money. All of these labels are a tool to make as much profit as possible.

Any time any worker drives past a "heroes work here" banner (which I still see sometimes), they must think "if you believe I'm a hero, pay me better"

I think that's the idea. Heroes "do it for free". You don't see superman getting extra money from saving people. He holds a job. Same with Spiderman. Even Link has to pay rupees for his gear to save the world.
So businesses have figured out if they give you the praise of being a hero, they don't have to pay you. Just like a superhero would never ask for money, you shouldn't either, hero.
- Let's not forget the humiliating ritual that is clapping hands for medical professionals and delivery folks during Covid pandemic.

Is roo clutching her pearls?

Are we really going to have this discussion again?

Skill is a measure of the amount of worker's expertise, specialization, wages, and supervisory capacity. Skilled workers are generally more trained, higher paid, and have more responsibilities than unskilled workers.

No one cares what self hate you've internalized
So you're saying middle managers are skilled workers? What is their skill? Because as far as I can tell, their main tasks are "motivating the work force" and "keeping everyone on track," and unless they all have degrees in psychology, I don't think that's something they're likely to have any sort of special skill in, do you?

Not the same thing. An essential worker was somebody doing a job needed for society to continue. That includes both skilled (years of training) jobs and unskilled (a week or two at most before you can do it) jobs.

If their job is essential for the continuation of society, maybe we should pay them more?
- No that money needs to go to coke addled morons with degrees in cognitive dissonance who spend their days fucking children and gambling in ways that can crash the global economy. Also ceo's that make the worst possible decisions.
- The problem is that ANYBODY can do it. Why pay a premium for grunt work?
- rice is essential. should it be more expensive than caviar?
  edit: I misread more as in more than the non-essential.
Was McDonald's and Starbucks really necessary for society to continue? And if it is: They should definitely be paid a lot more just for that, let alone the minimum necessary to survive (which they don't get).
- Probably not, but there's a lot of people who don't know how to make any food at all. Close the fast food restaurants and they starve.