> You do realize I made up all of the numbers, right?
Yes, I realize that.
I figured out the misunderstanding. Your $10/hour figure is net value after wages ($15/hour - $5/hour), whereas I was assuming you meant gross value provided by the employee to the employer. So, at least we're on the same page regarding that now.
> That reason is the value the company provides.
Yeah, exactly. Labor is one of the factors of production. The company puts all the factors together in a way that individuals cannot (due to scale or whatever), and pays labor a rent based on market prices. It also pays land or capital (other factors of production) rents too, based on market prices in the property and corporate bond markets.
Where we depart is on the normative judgement that labor should be paid more of that surplus value creation than what it's currently getting. The fact is that they currently are capturing some of that value creation, and that amount is determined by supply and demand in the labor market. The reason they don't get more is there's a large over-supply of fungible unskilled labor which just isn't that useful. It's like if there's a glut of capital or an over-supply of land (e.g. in a rural area); the rents go down accordingly because the inputs just aren't scarce. To introduce an intentional mispricing in the labor market, which would need to be done by force, will lead to a misallocation of resources. If inequality is a concern, there are less economically damaging policies to consider.
Where we especially depart is on the framing of this as exploitation. This mindset only leads to more human suffering. If you offer someone a job for $X+1/hour when their alternative is $X/hour, you've made their life better off, and we want to incentivize this as much as possible instead of condemning it because $X+1/hour is "too small". It is after-all what pulled China out of poverty, and if we instead had pushed this exploitation narrative, we might not have seen this humanitarian miracle play out.