[sinxoveretothex]

I think the question you should be asking is why are people taking these "too low" wage jobs?

Companies do close down all the time because expenses are higher than revenues. Restaurants are a very well-known industry where that is super common (and it's not because restaurants tend to pay exhorbitant wages). It's literally a meme to accountants that having a restaurant as a client is a good way to never get paid (they may close down in the 30 days after delivery they are typically given to pay you).

Also, in a way, we already "shut down" companies that pay too little: you just can't even offer to pay someone 2$/hour. The question I'd ask is "who would take that job if it were allowed?"

In essence, having low wage jobs should never be an issue: if you're of the opinion that these companies shouldn't exist in the first place, you're essentially saying that those workers have better options already available. Do we really need to fire them to get them to go for those?

[FranzFerdiNaN]

Because capitalism forces them between a job that does not pay enough and no money to buy food and housing and clothing and such.

The solution is of course something like a basic income to liberate people and break the power of companies.

[minikites]

>you're essentially saying that those workers have better options already available

If you're following the fable of capitalism, those people should start their own, more efficient businesses if none are available.

[sinxoveretothex]

Yes? Or just get hired by one? Or change field? Or move?

It's no fable. Some of us don't have what it takes to start their own company, that's true.

Probably there is no hope for some. I don't know how you'd show that there is a system that doesn't suffer from this problem. I mean, you'd have to show that even with less incentive to produce and more demand for products (since everyone is owed "decent living" or whatever it's called nowadays), there is no possibility for demand to exceed production.