Wages drive spending and aggregate demand.
We know that tax cuts for the rich don't do it, if you want to juice aggregate demand give everyone a $500 tax rebate.
If everyone is employed and their wages are climbing they go out and buy things.
> indirectly drive down demand to the point where corporations can no longer justify their profiteering.
If you cut those wages that means that means that less is getting bought which means that corporations start to look at warehouses full of flat panel TVs or whatever that aren't moving fast enough, and they start to price them lower in order to move them. The corporation that sticks to their pricing model becomes the one left holding the bag with all the inventory that isn't moving.
Dunno why you'd describe that as only "indirectly" affecting prices since that is directly addressing the supply and demand curve that sets the prices of the goods. The company will always try to take any profits it can.
It's an interesting double standard that you seem perfectly willing to tolerate this greedy behaviour from corporations, but not when it's individual people getting better wages and being employed. Here's a thought: instead of capping employment and driving down wages, why not cap profits and so drive down incentives to take any profits they can?
Rate rises are being justified to "loosen the labour market" aka drive unemployment higher, and to suppress wages. Except labour costs are NOT the main driver of recent inflation:
https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-...
So if employment and high wages aren't driving inflation, then suppressing them will only eventually, indirectly drive down demand to the point where corporations can no longer justify their profiteering.