Another side of this to consider, is that low-skill many jobs today are literally not worth as much as they used to be. In labor economic there is a very well

Another side of this to consider, is that low-skill many jobs today are literally not worth as much as they used to be. In labor economic there is a very well established understanding that jobs requiring high levels of skill are typically harder to fill hence corporations must pay more to get those individuals. But the reverse is true, low skill jobs are easy to fill so we don't have to pay as much. But here's the kicker, many branches of economics focus on technology as a eliminator of work. Basically, two guys becomes one guy and a machine. Eventually a machine might replace both of the guys. There is an intermediary between a job being automated entirely away though, where a physical human's work loses value. McDonalds for example has been rolling out automated ordering systems so that they don't have to employ as much "front-office" staff. If they keep those on payroll, there job brings much less value to the company than it did prior. Technology creates skilled jobs (aka maintain the robot) and eliminated unskilled jobs. But technology can also reduce the value-add of another unskilled employee. What I am getting at is the sad truth that it's totally possible unskilled labor is not worth as much as it used to be. If we continue to base our salaries entirely capitalistically, maybe these gaps will widen as low skill employees become less and less valuable while high skill employees gain value but less of them are required.