Eg: Shortage of Y increases prices of Y and higher prices of Y drive consumers to substitute Y with X
but not
XY get paid more than XX for same work, and higher price for XY drive employers to substitute XY with XX
(1) The notion that certain special-cause voluntarily participated activities are per se exploitative, and others are not, even though the underlying economic mechanics are identical for both categories. It's got all the hallmarks of back-fitting rationale to the narrative.
Interesting, though, that everyone seems to have taken "left leaning people" as some sort of invective.
Companies are more or less forced to overwork and underpay people in jobs which have suckers lining up to fill them. That’s the market forces at work.
The first half of your sentence is incongruent with latter half. If you have people lining up for the position, you are demonstrably not underpaying. What you wrote is merely an inversion of the "jobs that americans won't do" fallacy.
To bring it all the way around, it was only very recently that Spirit was underpaying people and could not get enough staff. Low and behold, Spirit doubles the comp and presumably attracts more people.
If people show up to work the job but then quickly quit that’s just a sign of information asymmetry. Which is one of the ways economic systems can get unbalanced. It’s no different than an investment bubble or other situation that takes more than Econ 101 levels of analysis to understand.
It’s not - employers have vastly more power and information than most employees.
This is why unions exist - to bring balance to the labor market. Though right leaning people often call that socialism and/or unAmerican. Talk about cog dis!