Most “unskilled labor” is heavily skill dependant. You wouldn’t want a chef, builder or plumber who didn’t know what they were doing. And for production: machinists, mechanics and foremen make or break profit with their skills.
So what’s a better name for these jobs?
Words do matter so why should a scientific field alter their jargon because it offends the emotional sensibilities of those people who have not studied it?
Because it is inaccurate, simple as that.
Except it is not within the context of the field. All the people who are complaining about this have never sat in an economics class. No one thinks that jobs require no skills but some jobs require a tremendous amount of skills that you need to know ahead of time and those are what we call “skilled labor”.
Real professionals care about the public perception of their field. Every major professional gathering in the sciences has a session focused solely on discussion of their jargon and how to communicate effectively with the public.
Why don’t economists care about the public perception of their field?
It would be flabbergasting to think they don’t care, until you realize they are a priesthood, not a profession. They serve the narrow interests of a small group. That group is well-served by denigrating working people.
While there are scientific approaches to the study of economics, the version of economics that makes it into the news is decidedly unscientific.