> now you just cut into the bank profits
Sounds like bank profits are the underlying problem here (at least in this example). If they did increase their fees, people can always go to another bank that didn't. This is the beauty of a true open market. But if a teller is paid less than the job is worth, and the bank can't afford to increase fees, is withholding basic needs from the working class worth the extra cash for the much smaller group of shareholders?
So ok, I get what you're really trying to say. There are jobs that don't make sense to pay more than $X, and that are unpleasant. Take garbage pickup. (I don't know how unpleasant this job actually is, but I can't think of a better example right now.) If it's absolutely terrible at the current pay, and people don't have to do it, then it makes sense that people simply won't.
But now garbage will start to pile around people's homes, or be dumped irresponsibly. Are we all better off? Not at all, which (I think) is what you're implying. But there's more than one answer here.
- As the piles of trash grow in number, so does the value in collecting it. So the pay will increase naturally. People will be willing to put some of their income, basic or not, into garbage collection.
- Or a startup seizes the opportunity to create a better, on-demand garbage pickup service and charges a premium. That way they can afford to attract employees and still make a profit.
- Or people do volunteer and become neighborhood heros for it. In this case, the currency received is social instead of monetary.
- Or a someone automates trash collection and volunteering is no longer necessary.
Perhaps some jobs can't use any of these solutions. But I do think we can be more creative than forcing an entire class of people into desperation so they do the dirty work for us.