You are talking about two different types of regulations, labor regulation is one thing that's your child labor laws, 40 hour work week, vacation/sick time laws, maternity/paternity leave laws, overtime laws, etc...
Then there is regulation on business, like not being open before 5am or all the hoops you gotta jump through in order to open up your own business. Like needing a license to be a hairdresser...
It is perceived differently, but it is exactly the same thing. The difference is in our perception. "The Market" is a tool, generated by human behaviours. It is a series of connections and correlations between action and reaction, due to the way the human nature is. It has mechanical laws and is not "good" or "bad". It's like a hammer. And just like a hammer, if you use it to forge steel, it's good, if you use it to crush people's skulls open, its bad. It's not the hammer, it's the people who use them. (like weapons...)
We put a limit to "the market" when it comes to child labour, but the mechanism in itself has none. If the mechanism were to be left alone, child would work 12 hours per day in sweatshops, like it happens in South-East Asian textile factories or in Africans cocoa plantations. -WE- put a limit because our sensibilities refuse such an idea, because our minds like to think we don't exploit child labour.
But the "market" itself, the mechanism, would lead to people exploiting that. And you can see this when you take away the knowledge of the thing. Western societies like to buy goods manufactured by children. They are cheap. Just don't tell them how they're done.
The mechanism works perfectly; those children have no way to defend themselves, they cannot -choose- their job, they are just exploited. They "accept" the offer. What is "market" for the consumer is "slavery" for the producer, but disguised as market as well; "hey, if they didn't work for me, they would die; there are so many of them... it's the demand and offer...".
The same gose for everything else.
Of course there is a vast difference between child's labour and opening hours, but the way the mechanism works is exactly the same. It only passes from inhumanity to laughable weakness because "what does such a small change makes"? Still, you can't refuse; if you do, someone else will take your place. It's demand and offer; you've got no power at all.
And small change after small change, powerlessness after powerlessness, conditions are eroded. It's the maket. The hammer which can forge steel is used to chip away your position piece by piece, when you've lost power and you can't do anything to prevent it.
And since the mechanisms of the market is what it is, there's no limit to where it might go. The limit is fixed elsewhere, in our perception of society and of our rights.
Unfortunately, we live in societies which convinced us that we are the best, and we are directed to a glorious future of "bestness", and we will have no shortcomings, no imperfections, and we will earn our prize". All the others are losers, we'll fight alone, we're the best. Because, like L'Oreal said: "we're worth it". And since we're so better, no sacrifice is ever too much, it's just that we are weak if we question them.
What constitutes fairness though? I would argue that fairness is basically decided by the free market aka people willing to do X work for X pay is what makes that work worth X.
Wealth is created by using three tools: people's mind, people's hands, people's time. You have to correctly reward each one of these things. That is fairness. You come up with solid, breakthrough ideas that no one else is able to conceive, you should be rewarded for your ideas. You can build things that no one else can, you should be rewarded for your craft. You work the lowest job of all, but you dedicate your time to it, you should be rewarded for that.
If you can't live out of your (well-done) work, you are underrewarded. If you are made slave to your job, you are underrewarded.
If you struggle, but your employee doesn't, your're underrewarded. Because people who work together are a group, a squad, so when one struggles, everyone struggles; otherwise it's people exploiting other people. (I've personally heard my boss explaining me that 5?/hour for my transltions was too much, but he had iPads, BMWs, dinners and petrol to come and go everyday from his home 150 km away paid for by the company)
I don't really agree with that, let's break down your example:
Architect is responsible for:
- Original design
- Making sure that design is structurally sound
- Making sure its repairable
- Selecting proper materials
- Making sure that it fits the budget
- Getting it done on time
- Breaking down the project
- Anything going wrong
- Managing the overall project
Welder on the project is responsible for:
- Welding where his told to weld
- Making sure his welds are good
If that dam collapses or there is some structural problem with it it's the architect's head on the line not the dude's who was pouring cement into the forms. In addition to that the architect had to go to school for years, prove themselves on smaller projects before getting a big one like a dam, compete with other architects and their designs, etc... A welder went to a vocation school for a couple of months and is ready to weld (I actually know how to weld from youtube guides and fucking around in my friend's garage).
That doesn't count, in the market. Think of the market, if there were five architect, but only one welder, the welder will be paid -more- than the architect, despite all the things you've listed.
Would that be fair?
No, it wouldn't
That is the market; it's a tool, a series of inputs and outputs. It has no good or evil. -We- have to use it to build good things or evil things.
The welder is as necessary to build a dam as the architect. They don't have to be paid the same, because they do different things, but one cannot be underpaid, unless the other is too. -That- is fairness.
It is unfair for an employee to be underpaid if the employer is not underpaid too.
Also what does percentage really matter? If you make 250k/year, which would put you in top 5% in the US you are still making nowhere near the CEO who might be pulling 20-50mil/year but you are not exactly poor either.
An average person in the US will make... what? 2 million dollars in his entire life? 3? 5? There is no person who can justifiably say to work so good as to make in a year 10 times what an average person will make in a lifetime. That is BS; the time, skills and craft required don't allow that to happen.