I dont think that is what this post tries to point out. It’s just that “skill” has become an way to justify strong inequalities, regardless of the “real” skill difference. By a sort of reversal of process.

Liberalists imagine that anyone can try to get any job or start any business. Thus if you earn less, it’s because you are not skilled enough to do something that pays more. Hence meritocratic arguments.

This rethoric has “stolen” the concept of skill to put it in this strong concept “skilled worker” / “unskilled worker”.

Yes skill difference exists between tasks (more precise than work, and less attached to a person but to an specific action). Maybe we should pay better people that spend time doing these tasks. But it is not to the “free market” to decide, but to the people, to the workers themselves what tasks get paid more or less.

Also because skill is far to be a good metric of what behaviors we should create incentives towards. Usefulness is much higher up on my list. If I am a very skilled advertising executive, is it a good reason to pay me more ?