No you are dancing around the point and avoiding it because you don't like the obvious conclusion.
LOL
You've tried to change the "point" a couple times now. First it was "here's a shot of the Andy Griffith Show that proves the gubmint should stay out", then it was "you speak too educated to know real life", then it was "employers screwing over employees doesn't need to be regulated because they totally wouldn't do it because it would hurt them!" (so then why object to the regulation if they won't do it..), then it was "but but but sometimes the employees have more power, then what"? You're floundering.
Your denial and dismissal of competitive pressures as the main moderator of income gap disparity within a job category shows me you simply do not understand business.
Quote where I said that competitive pressures weren't the main price moderator. I'll wait.
You're desperate to find something, anything, to show that I don't know what I'm talking about, and it shows in your invention of dialogue. Sorry, despite my talkin' all like out of a book, I apparently understand business in ways that you refuse to.
You are not addressing the issue of labour imbalances to the shortage side. They can be systemic and long term in certain areas. So why not have the gov't jump in to moderate the cost of labour down? Why it is fair for people in a certain region or at a certain time to demand wages well above what other areas or times pay just because... Is that like price gouging or surge pricing that the same type of people typically hate but which also makes a lot of sense in the free market.
Take a deep breath. Turn off your autopilot and Whataboutism for a minute.
I'm not talking about labor shortages, or surpluses. It's great that you know about those, and they do matter. What we're talking about here in this thread is NOT those. None of what you're talking about in the above segment is relevant to the thread or my position. I'm not saying this to put you down or "prove" something, I'm simply informing you that we are talking about information disparities between employer and recruit, and you're talking about amounts of potential employees. Those are different things. They may both influence the price of wages, but they do it in very different ways, and they present very different problems to society.
Not KNOWING the market value of a good is very, very different from that good being too plentiful or too scarce. Labor is weird in how it is sold because it's much more like buying a used car than buying a TV off of Amazon. This creates a situation where sometimes an employee gets sold a lemon, metaphorically. This law makes it harder for used car salesmen to screw over used car buyers, effectively.
Your stuff is all fine and probably worth talking about, but it does NOTHING to refute the usefulness of regulations protecting employees from being screwed over because they don't know something and the employer does.
To put it another way - surpluses/shortages influence what a price SHOULD be, and this is about how that price ends up not being the actual price because you can't look up the average pay of a worker at the company department you're applying to on your smartphone like you could a TV on Amazon and the recruiter has the option to screw you just enough to save the company long term.