1. Why is that absurd? A company that can only find customers for a widget at $1, that costs $2 to make, continuing to produce that widget because it is 'needed

1. Why is that absurd? A company that can only find customers for a widget at $1, that costs $2 to make, continuing to produce that widget because it is 'needed' is the only absurd idea I see here. Clearly the widget isn't needed, even if people are willing to buy it at below cost of production. Doing a job that costs more to do than what is paid back in compensation is no different than our hypothetical widget. 2. Most people in low-wage jobs are subsidized by someone else with a higher income (spouse, parent, etc.). They don't need high wages in order to afford to live. Thanks to that subsidization, they can afford to work for much less than someone who would have to live unsubsidized, while still maintaining a comfortable lifestyle. Those who are not fortunate enough to be subsidized have to compete against them. The mere fact that there is competition means that someone is going to lose, which means someone isn't needed. 3. Price is, as always, a function of supply and demand. If more people were needed for the jobs you mention than is currently being supplied, price would fundamentally rise, shrinking the affordability gap that exists for those who are unsubsidized in low-wage jobs. The jobs are low-wage quite simply because there are more people willing and able to do the job than there are jobs. Which, again, means that people aren't needed. Finally, this is not an all or nothing situation. Not needing some people does not equate to not needing all people. The role of the economy, and price by extension, is to find that balance.