You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation.
Try letting go of the 70 year old theories and read some modern research.
If your competitors can hire cheap people for working there, you will never be able to justify hiring more expensively. But if they can not hire that cheaply, you will be able to spend more too.
Value is what you gain by the use of it.
Price is the common agreement between those who have a thing, and those who want it, net of all other circumstances, to mediate an exchange.
If price exceeds costs, then that trade is equitable and sustainable.
Where a wage is offered that does not meet the provisioning costs of a good or service, that good or service cannot be sustainably provisioned, and the exchange is only sustained by the net transfer of wealth from the seller to the buyer. Such exchanges frequently occur, under a "backwards S-shaped" supply curve.
Here, the short term costs of a good or service may be met, but its long-term costs are not. A paradox is that as wages are pushed down, working hours increase, because the only way a worker can afford sufficient food is to increase the hours worked.
Similar dynamics are seen in oil, e.g., the $0.02/bbl price of oil low hit during the East Texas Oil Boom ~1929 - 1931. (Daniel Yergin, The Prize, chapter 13, generally).
As Adam Smith observed:
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more, otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.
(Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter 8 https://redd.it/2311mb)
What Hazlitt describes isn't a business. It's either a scam, or a charity, operated for the benefits of the owner, at the cost of the workers.
But, yes, let's deregulate everything so a few property owners can amass all the wealth to themselves. Great idea. Never been done before. Let's give it a shot.
It's hard to tell with many HNs saying incorrect things about economics and then realizing they were serious.