> If it is as trivially costly to find a new job or a different appartment as finding another restaurant, then consumers have a better bargaining position.

I don't now where you live, but where I do the next restaurant doesn't have 30-100+ people[1] competing for the same seat, the hostess doesn't run a credit check, and I'm not asked for a multiple of my meal-cost as a deposit.

It would appear to follow that

> then consumers have a better bargaining position

doesn't happen.

And...

> The alternative is not homelessness, starvation, or joblessness

We have homeless folks, we have jobless folks, and while I don't think many people outright starve to death in the U.S., we do have chronic malnourishment.

I'd like to ask you to consider how that evidence from the real world should provide feedback to your economic model of the reality in question.

This is one of my biggest frustrations with econ[2]. People mistake the map for the terrain in every field, but econ seems to positively fetishize doing it.

[1] I have personally witnessed over 100 people at an open house for a single apartment. Amazingly to me, my then-partner and I got it.

[2] Actually, it isn't all of econ - one school, in particular, seems to be highly susceptible to this mistake.