If an employer has to pay someone more if they live further away, then someone who lives closer is a preferable candidate for the job. So a person who was born into a family that already lives near offices or city centers has an advantage over someone who was born further away (typically lower cost of living areas).
Flipside: worker's noncompensated contributions to employment aren't free.
Ulitmately, labour benefits the business, and surplus accrues to the business. Changing costs mean a shifting balance of inputs (labour, capital). But if your firm isn't profitable whilst paying a living and sustaining wage to its workers, then what exists isn't a profit-making enterprise, but a charity, on behalf of the owners, subsidised by the workers.
There's no law that says a non-viable business has a right to continue operations.
