Labor vs Capital Exploitation

cheaper labour is good for those who own capital, not the people providing labour.

True for most of the working class, whose surplus labor value is siphoned away by capital.

Workers always earn less than the value they make for a useful business under capitalism (and that's before taxes, which don't necessarily require or imply capitalism). There's always a point where a cost to a worker exceeds the value to that worker, but doesn't exceed the value to society of facilitating that worker's labour.There are edge cases, but in general inhibiting the ability of workers to work (e.g. by making it expensive to get there, or expensive live near

Person who earns money from exploiting labor says labor should be cheaper. Shocking.

People don't like their labor going to someone else's profit.

Labor is the source of value. The managerial and owner class is paid and gets rich through the surplus of your labor. If your boss stops working, value is still created. If you stop working, everything grinds to a halt.You are being taken advantage of.

Except it will do literally no such thing. The working classes exist because of scarcity of labor, not despite it. Adding labor to the pool dilutes the value of a unit of labor (supply and demand). Only the tiny minority of individuals who own and control capital are positioned to capture any benefits accrued by increased availability of labor.

It sounds The Economist doesn't want workers to earn what they produce.

Workers don't have the capital or the know-how... that's why they are selling labor in the first place.

Not sure why this is being downvoted, as it's essentially a description of the lump of labour fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy).