One difference is that the middle class has higher wages (usually salaries) than the working class. Another difference is that the middle class has more education (skill**) than the working class. And, importantly, yet another difference is that the middle class has more commitment to the capitalist order of things than the working class.
: 'middle class' ahs better marketable skills - personally, as I cannot, I consider driving to be a skilled occupation, but since so many people *can* drive, its value as a skill is slieght; likewise, in ancient egypt being able to read was a highly profitable skill, because of rarity - its not a qualitative difference in skill, its a marketability difference.
Of course, skill is 'more marketable' than the lack of skill. What is 'rare' is that education is rationed and the lack of education is widespread.
: As Coates and Topham, in (I think, IIRC) 'The History of the Laboiur movement', a history of the T&GWU, when Dockers - a supposedly unskilled occupation, went on work to rule, or on strike, it soon became apparent exactly how much skill they actually had, when they couldn't be replaced.
: Are office workers skilled/ I doubt it, most management and desk flyers are unskilled - a degree is a signifier of general aptitude, not of skill per se.
: Some workers are just worth more than others because of the way the market works.
Sounds like you are trying to blur the distinction between education and 'on-the-job' skill. As I mentioned in the **, SOME jobs do provide their own training---but most don't. AND 'on-the-job' training, unlike formal education, teaches ONE skill.
And that is what I'm arguing against.