The 'Low Skill work' talking point has been going around recently and its pretty obnoxious because the idea of low skill work is not meant to be a value judgement that people who engage in that type of work are somehow lesser, its meant to be a materialist understanding of the nature of labour divisions that effect the majority of the working class.
Ironically, the people who are making a big song and dance about how you shouldn't say anybody is engaging in low skill labour are being anti-marxist because Marx was very aware of the importance and ramifications of low skilled labour in his theories, and didn't avoid describing it as such. One of the big things that Marx talked about is the way in which technological advances have continually reduced the overall need for high skilled labour since things that previously took a lot of time and experience to perfect, for example weaving, could instead be offloaded onto an industrial machine where the skill requirement of the individual worker was hugely reduced. In effect the workers themselves were pushed towards behaving in a more machine like manner where they were often doing repetitive and simple tasks in a factory where the aggregate of these tasks could produce something far more complex than the workers would have been capable of doing individually without a huge amount of training and experience, this reached its peak with the development of the assembly line in the early 20th century where extremely complex products like cars could be produced by people who would have absolutely no hope of making a car on their own as an individual, but can as part of the assembly process with many other workers doing relatively simple tasks.
Marx pointed out that the overall result of this was that capitalist production could result in considerable amounts of innovation and huge increases in overall production compared to older methods, but at the same time it was highly likely to reduce the economic power and leverage of the average worker, and could kick skilled workers down the ladder since their particular abilities were no longer difficult to reproduce and in high demand, reducing their ability to do things like demand fair recompense for their labour, instead the balance of power was shifted in favour of the owners of capital like property, machines, land, factories and other things that made for industrial society who reaped far larger returns because of their control of these things than the workers they employed, who, because they partook in unskilled work, were highly expendable and could be replaced easily, seriously damaging their negotiating power.
The last bit is crucial, its why a proper Marxist would scoff at this notion of declaring everybody high skilled workers just to make them feel good. The term is meant to be an objective recognition of reality, if you can be let go and replaced with somebody else with ease by your employer because your job has a large pool of people to draw upon and just about anybody can be easily trained up to occupy your role you are unskilled compared to a job where the exact opposite is the case, it does not matter how you dress it up.
This is all very true (and lays out better than any BreadTube video essay ever would the reason why all modern capitalists are just Marxists, but using Marx as a guidebook for exploitation of their capital advantage, instead of as a view of history and worker empowerment or whatever). Frankly, regardless of whether you cheer or boo what Marx pointed out...he was right! And capitalist "heroes" know that more than anyone.
But the last paragraph quoted above is wrong. And wrong in a way that really gets to the core of why Olly is a joke, politically and as a "trans" person.
"Low-skilled" workers, in the ultimate resolution of the modern Capital-centric economy, are people that need to exist, but only to do the worst and most mundane jobs. The thing is, the "low-skilled" have the least to lose. And while their jobs could (in theory) be done by anybody, by design...nobody wants to do them, and so they are wage-covertly in the most demand. Nobody in the owning-class would do those jobs, unless forced into it to survive. The owners have no real power over the people that do those jobs, except within a social structure that can be overturned in a day, as these people are treated like cogs and commodities, interchangeable, but as we've seen there's no slack in the upper-wage level to take these jobs even when wages go up — because the jobs suck and are actually "skilled" in terms of dealing with the absolute shit that comes with them.
Why does this concern Olly? Because he is a lazy elite owner-class SOB, who can't even conceive of being the sort of honest grassroots activist or ironic working comedian to make his mission/grift work long-term. He is only playing his male version of a female character as a means to get clout and gain paypigs, the modern Patreon version of Mrs. Doubtfire, to get his kids (i.e. his elite birthright) returned to him. Olly will NEVER bother with the mundane jobs of making good arguments, wearing well-fitting clothing , or being even remotely human (male or female).
The "real" job of being a spokesperson for the trans community is a shitty one, and for any true believer in that position, it'd be hard work. No one of means, like Olly, wants that burden. He stood around watching that weird "die-in" as a spectator for that reason -- he's a flown-in manager, not a worker, in the trans scene. "Unskilled" workers are very skilled at doing jobs no one else wants to do, for wages no one else will...and they are necessary jobs. Olly doesn't get that, because Olly doesn't get Marx...and neither will society until it's too late.
