Labor and Minimum Wages

Doesn't capitalism lead to the lower labor wages?
No. Under capitalism ones wages depend on how much one can produce. That is why Michael Jordan -- or a doctor -- gets paid millions of dollars more then the minimum wage. It depends on how well and how much they produce. The reason why factory laborers receive more wages in America is because they are rendered more productive by productive use of capital. 

Isn't the solution to low wages minimum wage laws?
If passing minimum wage laws are the secret to raising wages, then why doesn't the government make everybody rich by setting the wage to a million dollars? Would this solve poverty in third world countries, or would this make everyone -- who produces less then the million dollar minimum wage -- unemployable? The truth is that those who don't produce enough to merit the minimum wage will become unemployed by such laws, and those who do produce more then the minimum wage don't need such laws. If a laborer -- say Michael Jordan -- is not paid enough for what he produces, then someone else will hire him an pay him more. It is competition for labor -- that produces -- that pushes wages up. 

What sets prices of labor under capitalism?
The same system that sets prices. Not any particular businessman, but the free-market. It is competition between businesses for labor that pushes wages up; it is competition between laborers that pushes wages down (to reduce this competition between laborers unions create "union shops" which prevent non-union members from competing with them, by banning non-union members from working in the unionized field).

Don't laborers have a right to a share of the capitalist's profits, in addition to their wages?
Why are the laborers who demand a share in the capitalist's profits, silent in demanding their "share" when he incurs losses? Why don't they cry out and demand that they get to receive a share in those losses? If labor is the sole cause of all profit, then is it not also the sole cause of all losses? A moments reflection will point out that laborers are only responsible for their job description -- they are not directly responsible for the losses of a business -- and that the cause of an enterprise's losses lies essentially with the owner, as do the profits.

That a businessmen pays a worker less wages than the worker feels he deserves is not exploitation, as the worker is free to leave his job and look elsewhere for a higher paying one, if he thinks that someone can give him a better job for a better wage. Let any worker in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Communist China try to attempt such a feat as leaving his job without permission of the state, and he will soon find what exploitation really means.