While I agree in principle, the counter-argument is that you're just going to end up with that job going overseas or getting automated. Basically, if you need something done and it's only worth $10/hour to you to have it done, but no one near you will do it for less than $15/hour, either 1) it won't get done and that $10/hour economic input is lost, or 2) you'll find a way to get it done for $10/hour or less via means other than employing a local human.
And when outsourcing happens, you tax the fuck out of that business transaction, and with the proceeds pay your unemployed laborers a livable minimum income. You think Chinese labor is cheap for no reason? There are tons of gov't subsidies, from straight up handouts to nonexistant labor laws (which are a form of subsidy to big business at the expense of workers, a reverse tax).
The same should apply to automation. The inordinate inequality of wealth which is bound to happen with automation should be alleviated through heavy taxation. Or if tax is too dirty a word, ownership of such dual capital/labor should be partly socialized--i.e. newly created AI/robot companies must put up a % of their shares to the public who receive equal amounts.
I think this is only true in a closed system. In an open, globalized world like we have today, the price of the output doesn't have to go up if another place with cheaper labor can produce the same output for cheaper. Thus is many cases you end up with a situation where you can't raise the price of your output because your customers will just buy the foreign-produced version.
Unless that cost was "digestible" by the system, but had simply been previously going to C-level and board members' salaries. Then companies which continue to pay execs exorbitantly, and companies which give their execs a 0.001% pay cut or otherwise reduce inefficiencies to absorb the cost increase will compete.
