I think that's at the root of the argument - people are different, and there are plenty who aren't smart enough or energetic enough to become bosses or entrepreneurs (as far as entrepreneurs, family money is the number one factor predicting their success). There are also people, like myself, who just aren't inclined to care much for money - I'm far more interested in freedom and adventure, and my life reflects that.

So I think the question at the root of everything is - do people who are not smart enough, energetic enough (perhaps they have a chronic illness or even depression), don't have family money, or aren't inclined to make money - if they're willing to work 40 hours a week, should they still have a dignified life? Should they still get healthcare and food? If they're dedicating those 40 hours per week to helping someone else's dream come true (as you do for whoever your boss is) should they be paid a living wage that's some reasonable percentage of what their boss makes? (Bezos makes about $150,000 per minute. Is it reasonable to suggest that anyone under his employ should make at least $50k a year, as opposed to the $15 per hour he's currently paying them? He needs those dullards to keep his company going - shouldn't he pay them?)

Are people who experienced bad luck, or aren't by nature entrepreneurial or educated (again, family money plays a big role here, at least in the US) worthy of a living wage and healthcare and nutritious food?

I would say yes.