Capitalism relies upon a certain % of the population being expendable from the workforce. As there are changes in supply/demand then some people need to be employed/laid off. Typically, in any society, those who have the least cultural capital/worth/respect are the ones who get treated as expendable. Various forms of 'persuasion' can be used to make this happen, e.g. the huge campaign at the end of WW2 to make women give 'their' jobs back to the men. Making work less family friendly, an OK-ish benefit system, harassment at work, labelling jobs as things like 'fireman' - there are many, many ways to keep jobs for the boys.
Socialism really isn't much better. Where there are trade unions, they still frequently negotiate to benefit the more highly privileged within the work force, so if you watched Made in Dagenham, the way that the Unions got much better pay & conditions for men, until the women kicked up a fuss. This benefits the employers, as they can have 50% of their workforce being paid less, and it can benefit the male workers, as strokes their male ego and privilege, even though it means that they may well have a lower family income.
I know that business owners often say they can't pay more etc, but actually if they paid ALL their workforce the same, then it gives them better flexibility, and they can increase competitiveness between workers for promotions etc. It can (oddly) benefit the employees as well for everyone to have the same, lower, income as a 2-person income ends up the same, giving better financial equality within the household. Also, it is incredibly difficult for other prices to out-strip the earning potential of the workforce, as simply not enough people can afford to pay over the odds. (Although UK house prices seem to belie this)
So - a socialist approach to wages, but capitalist free market for goods & services, seems, in theory, to be the best way towards equity & respect.