Except...that doesn't actually work. The problem with this kind of thinking, I, er, think, is that it treats conscious actors as if they are not conscious or capable of decision-making. Things that are not conscious seem to follow deterministic laws--push a rock this way, it does that. Apply this force to this chunk of matter, and it behaves in thus and such a way. And so on. Labor is not like goods and commodities. Labor can choose to sell itself for less, where oranges and ferraris cannot. Furthermore, employers find ways to collude on wages, usually while avoiding the legal definition of "collusion." For example, the BLS posts detailed wage statistics for various kinds of jobs in every market in the country. As an employer, I can look at those stats and guess that I can hire someone to do a job for slightly less. I know I can find someone who will work for slightly less, because his other option is to starve--in turn, precisely because all the other employers in the area know that same not-so-hidden secret.
It's pretty easy to show that something like this must be happening. We start with the well-known fact that wages have remained basically flat since the 1970s. As you can see here:
https://www.google.com/search?clien...fYAhVMwmMKHYeSBEUQ3icI3AEwHw&biw=1366&bih=656
GDP per capita has risen five-fold during the same period. Why is that? The economy has grown faster than the population, but wages have remained roughly the same for the working classes? The only reason this could possibly happen is if the people at the top are keeping all that extra money...as it turns out they are (another well-known fact).
A growing economy DOES NOT mean prosperity for the working classes.
This is obviously correct...unless we punish them more for leaving.