> More so the price the market would bear, but yes.

That really depends on the elasticity of demand for that thing. Usually when a thing costs more to produce than you can sell it for, we say that the market shouldn't produce that thing then, so there's nothing to complain about.

> There is also no denying that people are less willing to do hard labor than they used to be.

By which you mean "less willing to do hard labor as cheaply", presumably.

No I mean strictly less willing to do hard labor. The social safety nets in America may not be great, but most people would prefer to deal with that rather than do back breaking labor. And if you are not in that situation, you would rather do a different job that would pay equivalently. It used to be that your options were do what you had to or starve. Not starving is a good motivator.

> No I mean strictly less willing to do hard labor.

That isn't a thing, unless you're saying that there is no price whatsoever at which people would be willing to do hard labor.

There is no point at which people would be doing to both do the labor and others would still buy the resulting product at an increased price.

You are dealing in a hypothetical where there aren't market forces at work.

> There is no point at which people would be doing to both do the labor and others would still buy the resulting product at an increased price.

Exactly! Which means the good or service shouldn't be produced.

> You are dealing in a hypothetical where there aren't market forces at work.

Erm, no. This is what market forces are. Market forces decide what is and what is not produced, via exactly this mechanism. This is the very essence of what a market is.