>"it affects the unskilled labor with near-limitless supply that you have mentioned." That "near-limitless" supply is the actual problem. Horrible as it may so

>"it affects the unskilled labor with near-limitless supply that you have mentioned." That "near-limitless" supply is the actual problem. Horrible as it may sound, but we're already talking about people and people's labour as a resource. Unless you allow the market to regulate the supply, you'll always have an imbalance. In fact, we make it worse by letting it get to this point. If we were to let the market work on it's own now, with no government interference, people would probably be dying in droves from starvation (assuming charity doesn't help them along). Attempting to make everyone's life not miserable (with e.g. minimum wage laws) skews the market and allows individuals to have (or have more) children than they would if they were living in a tough market. If occurring naturally, this sort of effect would be very subtle and not be a cause for misery. But, since we've already propped up a large population that would not have occurred ordinarily, we're stuck in a situation where outcomes are unthinkable. I'd even argue that it's a self-reinforcing cycle at this point. The over-abundant supply pushes the wages down, making the situation even worse were it not for welfare/minimum-wage hikes. I think as a society, we have a moral obligation to wean this tap off, minimizing the harmful effects as the market adjusts while at the same time removing the perverse incentives that caused us to get to this point in the first place.