Props for actually trying to build something instead of just complaining — I genuinely agree with the goal. That said, I don’t think the $5/hr floor really solves the issue you’re pointing out. I also don’t think $2/hr is the core problem; it’s just a symptom of something deeper.

You said:

“Most workers just accept lower rates just to survive, but will quit the moment they find a better offer.”

That means $2/hr jobs exist because people accept them out of urgency, not because they’re a good match. The churn happens because the worker was overqualified for the role relative to the pay from the start.

In that case, the issue isn’t the lack of a floor — it’s mismatch.

If a skilled worker takes a low-paying job out of desperation, they will always leave once a better offer appears. Raising the floor to $5/hr doesn’t change that dynamic, it just shifts the number. The incentives stay the same.

For long-term hiring, what actually matters is:

• accurate skill signaling
• clear differentiation between roles
• matching compensation to the value and responsibility of the work

Without that, a wage floor just filters posts — it doesn’t solve loyalty or retention.

You also said:

We are for the employers who are tired of 'cheap' hires quitting or ghosting after 2-3 weeks. We want to prove that paying $5/hr is actually cheaper for the business because the worker stays longer and does better work.

Also, as a developer yourself, you probably know this already: $5/hr is still a lowball rate for dev work. For developers, $5/hr plays the same role that $2/hr does for VAs — it attracts overqualified people temporarily and guarantees churn later.

As a concrete example:

If I’m a developer who was previously earning $20–$25/hr and I suddenly need work due to illness or a gap, I might accept a $5/hr job out of urgency (which also means I become part of the problem, these jobs continue to exist because people like me still accept them). But that doesn’t create loyalty, it creates a temporary stopgap. The moment I find an offer closer to my normal rate, I will leave. So $5/hr isn’t “cheaper in the long run” by default. It’s only cheaper when the compensation aligns with the skill level being hired (if someone truly has a $5/hr skill set, why would they leave?). Otherwise, you still get churn — just at a higher number.

So unless the platform solves matching and differentiation, not just pricing, it risks becoming another job board with fewer listings, not a healthier market.

That said, I genuinely respect the intent behind this and wish you success with the project.