In the introductory, "disruption" phase it will come in at about half the current cost. Then, once the current market and expertise has been destroyed, they can rack-in maximum profit by jacking up their prices, with added, predatory inconveniences, such as "cleaning costs".
The choice is never between "Pay what it costs for people to live good lives" and paying less than that. The choice is between paying what the company can afford or having no job at all.
I'd prefer everyone be making enough money to buy a 2000 sqft house and groceries with enough left over for leisure but that option isn't on the table.
In this scenario, you'd prefer Widgets not exist and Employee B not have a job.
Since you're going to say, "Raise the price of Widgets!". $20 is the ideal price point for product, any more or less and the volume sold * profit falls and the possible wage for Employee B will drop.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-los-angeles-depu...
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-10-14/a-guide-...
https://www.sfexaminer.com/forum/san-francisco-government-sy...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/city-hall-corruption-...
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/san-francisco-deve...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_scandals_in...
These are just the ones who were both obvious and politically disfavored enough to get punished. Read about building in SF if you want to hear about the big boys.
So the costs manifest both as labor that shouldn’t exist, costs just because the project is extended so long (administrative salaries and interest on loans), and costs to buy land from entitled owners.
If it was down to cost of labor and everything else was the same, we’d just pay double and be done in the same amount of time.