While it pays less I don't think I'd ever state that it's "lower tier". If QA is an integral part of your process, that the customer pays for, then you don't disparage people doing the necessary work.

Something can be both. Incredibly low-skilled and easy yet valuable.

I said QA is viewed as lower tier, not less skilled. QA, especially SDET style QA, is plenty difficult, but gets very little respect.

Yes, there are levels of QA. But QA, at its most difficult is also software development, but for the most part, is not.

I would say, that on average, QA is a lower skilled profession than software development. If I were to make an analogy, QA is the nurse to the developer's doctor.

And, yes, it is a lower tier. You hire developers before QA and fire QA before developers. But, like you said, it deserves respect. Just like all professions. And I'd say that a competent QA staff is the sign of a successful organization. Because while you can have your developers test, it's better to move those responsibilities off their plate so they can focus on their core work. Just like you could have your employees take out the trash and sweep up, but once you're beyond the "5 people in a garage" setup, you're going to hire a cleaning service.

To the point of the higher up comments.

It is an issue. Even if QA were more difficult, challenging, etc than development, we can't get around the fact that it is perceived as supplemental to development. It is a place where organizations put people who want to be developers but the organization doesn't want to be developers. Or a dumping ground for 1x developers. And it seems, a way to tweak diversity numbers without actually doing anything.