Requiring skill doesn’t make it “skilled labour”, though. The phrase means more than “labour that requires something that meets the definition of skill”.
Not exactly, but close. Skilled labor is worth that unskilled labor such is required to replicate it. You don’t need primary school education to be strong as fuck and great at busting rocks, such labor is far more productive per hour than the average.
If you can learn it without primary education, it’s not skilled labor.
If the means of completing a task must be learned, then the task requires skill.
Requiring skill doesn’t make it “skilled labour”, though. The phrase means more than “labour that requires something that meets the definition of skill”.
Who determines the definition, and toward what ends?
Investopedia has a definiton.. It seems to provide a breakdown of a lot of related terms.
I also would make the argument that not everything that needs to be learned should be described as “skilled”.
Saying the word “the” needs to be learned. I wouldn’t describe saying “the” as “skilled”.
What is your intention from “should”?
From your suggestion, whose interests are being protected, and whose harmed?
Why should anyone in particular dominate the process of establishing usages?
Why should you be the one who defines skilled labour?
What benefit is there to collapsing the definitions of unskilled, semi-skilled, and highly skilled labour into skilled labour?
How have I expressed the intention you have attributed to me?
I asked why anyone should dominate.
Not exactly, but close. Skilled labor is worth that unskilled labor such is required to replicate it. You don’t need primary school education to be strong as fuck and great at busting rocks, such labor is far more productive per hour than the average.