If, as you say, "there are basically 3 reasons", then disproving 1 should be sufficient to prove that 2 or 3 is true. You're just trying to place an unreasonabl

If, as you say, "there are basically 3 reasons", then disproving 1 should be sufficient to prove that 2 or 3 is true. You're just trying to place an unreasonable burden of proof on possibilities you disagree with. There is no difference between possibilities 2 and 3. If the overhead necessary for a company to survive doesn't allow them to pay their workers, the company shouldn't survive. Mysteriously, companies that underpay their workers always have money to pay their execs and shareholders--you're just expecting workers to pay the overhead instead of the people at the top. All this is, is a shitty excuse for exploiting workers. As for proving 1 incorrect: whenever essential workers unionize--analogous to starting their own consultancy--money suddenly materializes to pay them more. As it turns out, essential workers are essential, and the only reason they get paid less is that the people at the top can pay them less and keep more money for themselves.