That isn't to their long term benefit. A similar argument would be that consumers should be aiming for an economy like South Sudan. GDP per capita of around $40

That isn't to their long term benefit. A similar argument would be that consumers should be aiming for an economy like South Sudan. GDP per capita of around $400/annum. Consumers like to minimise spending and so if the South Sudanese only spend a few hundred dollars a year on average that must be great for them... The thing the low wages argument misses is that employers don't actually want to minimise labour spending, they optimise by increasing budget for labour all the time. They want to minimise wasteful and unproductive labour spending. If people will take less money, they'll offer less money. If a role doesn't add value, they'll cut the role. If a role is adding money on the margins though, they're enthusiastic about hiring more people even if the wages paid are a bit higher, because it is a win-win situation where the workers make more money and the business makes more profit. Long story short - it isn't at all clear that low wages driven by hiring impediments are a long term win for businesses. It might just be a lose-lose situation where they happen to offer a worse deal to workers as a byproduct of being unable to maximise their profits.