> So the issue isn't that blue collar workers are "beneath" white collar workers, but that (at least to an industry outsider) it's not clear what special skills these workers have that would command high market wages.
You say the issue is not one of considering blue collar workers to be inferior ("beneath"), but your second clause implies that if blue collar workers do not possess "special skills" "that would command high market wages" then something is "not clear", i.e. the blue collar workers would be "lower" without those "special skills".
This presumes blue collar work and workers are inferior to white collar work and workers because blue collar workers need "special skills" to be equivalently compensated/regarded.
Ok I get it now. I think a natural reading of my statement is that the original post was claiming some cognitive bias, in which white color workers felt themselves to be inherently better than blue collar workers, vs my own view that white color workers on average are actually worth more in the market.
My claim is that there is no cognitive bias, but that white collar workers in general are worth more (because they possess a rarer set of skills).
