For example: Landlords who now own all the land thus control the supply and also inflate demand by reducing supply.
Source: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/fil...
Having said that, I sympathize with arguments to nudge things toward more just/equal outcomes recognizing supply&demand can be quite inhumane - after all it's a mechanism, not a goal in itself. Some UBI etc. could be an efficient way to help.
Having said that, western world spends huge amounts of money on public education for everyone, and after all that lots of people can't do anything fancier than tiding up a garden. It's a huge waste of resources. Future manual labor workers could start working after quick and efficient elementary schools, and start building wealth sooner to offset their lower productivity. But boy, no one is going to have conversations like that.
On all sides of all debates there's just bunch of irrational people trying to tweak a system that is too complex for them to understand.
You are much closer to these lower paid jobs than you realize.
Strange logic.
And even if, start changing from the top not the bottom or the middle
I'll work for a week as a landscaper.
The landscaper will work for a week as a software engineer.
Who do you think will fare better at getting close to a decent job well done?
Of course people who sit all day like many engineers will have problems doing manual labor. The problem is a good amount of them have enough experience with their hands to be a landscaper on demand. You will not find any but the most Einstein level landscapers able to immediately do productive software engineer work.
The % of people able to do it is much lower in software engineering and that reflects its compensation compared to landscaping.