Math is hard but I can tell you it ain't rocket science. Let me take you through the rationale instead. Labor is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Generally, that willingness is tied to how much the labor can produce. If you are cleaning floors, then how many square feet per hour can you do? If the employer supplies an electric floor scrubber enhancing performance of the laborer then the laborer can earn more and the employer also earns more. Thus, if the employee can now do twice the square footage per hour she may get 50% more in pay not 100% because the employer needs to get the cost of the floor scrubbing equipment paid back over time with interest. If the employee wants to make more then they can invest in tools and they will be able to get 100% of the benefits. The tools invested in by the employee can be a electric floor scrubber, mechanics tools, or education.
For those who have squandered or otherwise not been able to take full advantage of the first 15 years of their road will be much harder because they will have to create a surplus from their low pay jobs in order to finance the education they missed before they can qualify for a better paying job.
However, if the low/no skill worker cannot find jobs she can do then she cannot create a surplus to pull herself up to a higher pay level. So it is important to have low/no skill jobs available so persons willing to work hard and sacrifice current consumption for investment in their futures can succeed. If we price them out of the market, then we will have them on the dole for their entire lives. This is bad for society and destructive for both the individuals and the economy.![]()
y ibs can earn more than low skill worker (n high skilled blue collar)?

