My point was more that it was surprising to me that someone as vilified as Trump still got almost a third of the votes in CA, but I agree that your point makes that look substantially weaker, so I retract it.
That's not what is meant by wage gap, you have been (intentionally) deceived. The gap only works if you do NOT account for things like "doing the same job".
The problem is that the way the issue is (intentionally, I'm sure) presented is with charged phrases like "for every dollar a man makes, a woman only makes X cents". To a reasonable person, that sounds like it implies "for the same work" -- otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges, so they must not mean that, the reasonable person thinks. And so the reasonable person gets (rightfully) angry and it becomes a very emotional issue, even though it was based on deception. In that sense, what most people imagine when someone says "wage gap" doesn't exist.
Many people find it more convenient to instead believe the difference is caused by people in charge automatically offering women less than what they would offer a man. Of course, studies controlling for the type of job, credentials, experience, ability, etc., show that to be a poor hypothesis, but it is nevertheless a phrasing that makes it easy to make people angry (and vote for you).
The concept of minimum wage is beneficial to the big players as well, because the small players will eventually have neither the money to pay people more than they're worth nor the upfront capital to develop the machines to replace them.
You will also never be able to justify hiring more expensively if you can instead use a cheap/free machine, which is of course where we're heading, since people refuse to acknowledge the truth in OP's quote.
Not sure why this type of thing keeps on popping up as "news". The fact that jobs requiring no skill will be driven down to bad conditions/pay/whatever is sort of axiomatically obvious and inevitable given how capitalism and a more-or-less free labor market works.
Having held one of these shit jobs in the past to get myself through college, I understand how much it sucks, but complaining/negotiating when you have zero leverage simply does not work (in the sense it is very likely not the highest expected value use of your time -- IMO a good way is education, get yourself ready for a slightly better job, repeat until happy).
This entirely depends on what utility you assign to a given amount of money.
For many people who are well-enough off to consider having a good risk floor, the utility of a non-life-changing amount of extra money is nearly zero. It is only once you get into the high jackpots that it gets interesting.
Depending on your situation it can be completely rational to play the lottery or be a startup employee.
I agree with you, I'm just disappointed with the article I guess -- it seems to dress up completely banal information as research/news.
For instance it basically says that a largely fixed dollar amount that doesn't vary that much by house, electricity consumption, looks large if you make $10,000 a year but looks tiny if you make $100,000 a year.