That’s a different question and I disagree with the implicated identification of people and their occupation. You can put a shoemaker skilled to produce shoes all by themself and sit them on a pipeline with one simple task. They, as a person, are still skilled even though their skill isn’t wanted anymore by capital, and still their job is unskilled.
Putting skilled people into unskilled jobs is taking away their dignity. And since nobody is unskilled, unskilled jobs shouldn’t exist.
Even then, I disagree. Even in the simplest of task, one can get very skilled at it. You can easily tell the difference between a newbie and a veteran on a production line.
I also disagree that these sort of unskilled jobs shouldn’t exist. There’s benefit to this sort of separation of duties. If people want to organize to do it on their own, without hierarchical coercion, I don’t see a problem with it.
I like the idea presented in The Dispossessed where unpleasant labor is distributed to everyone with relatively short shifts of a few months I think. This is less efficient since, as you said, there is skilled involved in every activity, but who cares about efficiency.
But sure, if people find pleasure and meaning in it, I’m not going to take it away from them. I just don’t think that’s true for the majority of people in these jobs today. And it’s not doing justice to them to praise them for a job they would rather not do.
And the word “unskilled” might not be perfectly accurate but there are jobs that are by design replaceable and “unskilled” is still the best word to describe that until you offer a better one. But I’m also happy to agree to disagree. I totally see and understand your point and we are not too far away from each other
