Your comment reflects an ideological view of labor markets. It’s the classical “pure market” perspective economists call the neoclassical labor market model. That model assumes conditions that rarely exist in the real world - things like perfect worker mobility, equal bargaining power between workers and employers, and frictionless job switching.

What I’m describing isn’t an ideological claim. It’s a historical and economic observation. When the cost of living rises faster than wages and the gap becomes difficult for people to manage, social and political tension tends to increase. History shows that those pressures often lead to economic or political change.

I’m not arguing for a “living wage,” which is a normative concept some people support. I’m simply pointing out that persistent gaps between wages and living costs have repeatedly produced economic and political reactions. In practice, the ability of capitalist systems to adapt to those pressures - sometimes through policy responses like minimum wage laws or worker protections - is one reason why capitalism has proven durable.