If they are infinitely replaceable, why do they deserve to be protected with higher wages?
It is that simple. Humans are not Resources.
For the purposes of ensuring a healthy, long term society, humans are not only resources.
For the purposes of properly allocating a society’s resources (which is also in the interest of a healthy, long term society), humans’ labor is a resource, which can be shortened to humans as resources.
$45k is not a livable wage anywhere within an hour commute of Manhattan
> And I thought we were talking about book cover artists?
"editors, marketing assistants, publicists, sales associates, designers, and contract assistants"
I briefly lived in SF, wherein the dynamic was similar. Most of us were a paycheck (or less!) away from homelessness. It's "doable" if you're okay with having near-zero room for savings, or covering unexpected expenses, or what have you.
I think $45k comes out to a take-home of about $2800 per month. I see ads on craigslist for 2-bedroom apartments in Brooklyn in the 2000-3000 range, and 3-bedroom apartments also in Brooklyn in the 3000-4000 range, either of those seem reasonable with a $2800 take-home. Of course it means having roommates.
But let's reframe the question: "why should a publishing company willingly starve their competent and talented staff, which they force to live in the most expensive city in America?"
How you answer that question will be telling.
Still I believe that more than 75% of human effort is currently spent on zerosum games, keeping the riffraff in their place and jockeying for position among ourselves.
If we could flip that so that 75% was spent on non-zerosum games, we could work half as hard and still have more.
It's probably in the people's best interest to be a bit less ambitious than "pay for an infinite number of people", since that's unlikely to happen regardless of how compliant the companies are.
If capitalism tells people their job is not worthwhile, it has failed. This is especially applicable for creative work.
(inb4 smug citation needed see, for example, the Lawrence textile strike, and the ensuing consequence in S. Doc. No. 870, 62nd Cong., 2nd Sess., at 9 (1912), reprinted in Serial Set Vol. No. 6170, or really just search for "strike" and "minimum wage" in your favourite library of actual history books)
The invisible hand of the market is, sadly, unable to write bills or increase pay, and since management can't see it -- unsurprising, given that it's invisible, it's right in the name -- they sometimes need to have it spelled it out for them.