Someone is not worth $50/hr if someone else is willing to do the same job with equal capability for $5/hr.
For example, rich kids can take unpaid internships because they don't have to worry about food or rent for the duration of internships.
Poor kids can't usually afford to take jobs that don't pay.
Only about 40% of poor people 18-64 even have jobs.
1. teenage children of the upper middle class or higher
2. poor adults with a history of bad decisions
It's kind of a weird mix. Where are the children of the poor? You'd think they might want money much more than the children of better-off families do.
Surgeons, business owners, passenger jet pilots, software developers, and corporate executives all send their teenagers off to work minimum wage jobs. The point seems to be to learn about answering to a boss and/or to learn why success in school is important.
The ice cream parlor in Sausalito is run by (and frequented by) the children (and parents) of one class?
The Denny’s in Excelsior by that of another?
Definition 1. - your version "a worker is only "worth" $50/hour if there is a supply of people willing to pay them $50/hour."
Definition 2. "a worker is "worth" $50/hour if they add $50/hour value for the business." (who then goes on to pay the worker as little as possible, maybe only $5/hr)
Not sure which definition is "correct".
Definition 1 includes both supply and demand. You have a worker willing to work for $50/hr and someone willing to pay them $50/hr.
Definition 2 is only taking into account demand. You have a supplier who has set their price, but no buyers at that level.
This doesn't seem like a particularly helpful illustration.
Another way to look at it is: what is the maximum a company could conceivably pay for a particular role, even if that amount was way above the market rate? That number would presumably be a bit below the value that role is expected to contribute.