But, and I hate to stretch this analogy to its breaking point, it's more like the overwhelming majority of Americans are apple sellers (read: wage laborers) and they have no way to achieve basic human rights like food, shelter, and baseline medical care without selling their apples. And they can only sell to one buyer at a time as part of an apple contract (employment contract) and if that buyer decides to stop buying from them ("restructuring"), which the buyer may do at any time (right-to-work laws), our apple seller has to go looking for another buyer (job search) which can take months all while their savings dwindle...
So you can see why some people might think this is not the optimal way to structure a society. Or to just put the analogy in its coffin, they might see this situation as more complicated than just a few apple-buyers getting a bargain.
But that’s a dumb generalization. Microsoft wasn’t paying low wages and software people easily found jobs elsewhere but it still made Gates a billionaire.
Warren Buffet gave cash to companies he thought were undervalued and on hard times in exchange for ownership stakes. This worked out more frequently than not and made him wealthy without exploiting any labor (many of these companies paid/pay solid middle class wages).
The Google founders are billionaires and their company has nothing to do with paying for cheap labor and up selling it.
Exploiting labor prices isn’t a business model that pays well enough by itself. In other words, companies that produce billionaires have to be providing more than just labor at a higher price than they paid for it.
Google executives (possibly not the founders personally) colluded with management at competing employers to reduce employee mobility and negotiating power.
The cost of getting caught wasn't much compared to the salary increases they saved. So, yes, the labor wasn't 'cheap' but it also wasn't the fair market value.