FFS. You sure have a sh*tty world view. BTW some high IQ Ds want to pay low skilled workers higher wages, as well. If only a COLA was made annually to the minimum wage, these entry level workers would be getting a raise every year, versus a pay cut.
Social democracy is what you’re seemingly describing / looking for. For it to work well ones Government needs lower levels of corruption (as it requires the state to allocate tax money through social programs in a sensible manner that benefits the average citizen).
I don't think it fits neatly under that label, but more importantly, I think labels have zero meaning anymore, so I don't like to use them. Social democracy is typically a capitalist system with strong welfare/social programs through state regulation and redistribution AFTER market processes occur. These are the Scandinavian models - private ownership remains dominant, but taxes fund extensive programs. What I'm thinking of is slightly different. I want to retain the incentive model of private ownership and human desires (whether that's greed for money, for power, or just to do good). In general, I think there are two ways to do this, but as I said, I don't know if these can work, and of course, I'm sure they aren't the only potential ways to maintain incentive. One is what I previously described, which is reforming the private ownership structures themselves - employee ownership, profit-sharing, worker cooperatives. These address allocation at the point of production, NOT just through post-hoc redistribution. For example, that might even include something where once companies reach a certain size or profitability threshold, all citizens (or perhaps all employees) directly own shares - so in lieu of direct taxation, or in addition to tax reduction, you get direct profit allocation as part-ownership. These would be government-mandated structures, not voluntary. The second is to incentivize the extreme strong performers to maintain their drive, but re-allocate their profits in their name, or perhaps let them have a say in how that's allocated. For example, the government would mandate that after a certain amount, all profit is essentially re-allocated and that allocation is marketed to your name - you are the do-gooder - and maybe you have a say in where that goes, or where it cannot go (to war, for example). Giving people some choice helps maintain incentive - which IMO is better than pure redistribution where they have no say at all. Yes, incentive will be impacted, but we need to balance incentive against allocation problems. As I said, I don't know how this can be solved but just thinking out loud here. (One concern with any system is corrupt leadership. But structural reforms like distributed ownership might actually be more resilient to bad governance than pure redistribution systems - when workers and citizens own stakes directly, there's less that needs to flow through potentially corrupt government hands.)
Historically, these jobs were never meant to be a career, they were simply a stepping stone to something bigger .... now grocery stores have unionized labor and states like California are paying morons $20hr to flip burgers. (and you wonder why food is so expensive?) Before the influx of illegal labor taking over construction industries and outsourcing of other jobs, these unskilled labor jobs were mostly held by young people with no real responsibility - suddenly these unskilled jobs are being held by adults with bills to pay because someone screwed with the balance of things. I recall when I was a kid in the 70's, if you saw a toy and it said "Made in Taiwan" or Made in Korea" kids wanted nothing to do with it, you knew it was junk. Then came the 80's & 90's where everything was made in .... xxx. Now, what isn't made somewhere else? Screw with the balance ....
~ 2 generations ago, in the legacy era, when there were no mobile phones/laptops/PCs/earbuds/Wi Fi/spotify, live stream, micrsoft, amazon, uber, EV, video games etc (not even Blockbuster videos)
