Ok, so this question popped into my head for some odd reason and I wanted someone with a bit more knowledge on utilitarianism to go over it a bit.

The Premise: When we have the value of labor tied in a capitalistic fashion, we have situations where labor can be expensive if there is relatively little labor to the amount of jobs or in the case of unskilled jobs currently, high supply of laborers but too little jobs which makes the price labor very cheap. Assume that there is no minimum wage or labor unions.

If the situation becomes really bad with tons of laborers and very little jobs, the amount of money paid for some jobs, some may argue, will become less than the required amount to live properly within society (grocery stacker isn't worth a $20,000 salary). By itself, this means that collectively, the value of a laborer is not enough to even justify letting it live.

Conversely, in order to increase the value of laborers and the amount they would get paid, you would need to thin out the numbers in order for laborers to be able to have more leverage in job salary (why bother negotiating if there are thousands others lining up for the job right?).

My question: Would utilitarianism say that it would be ok to murder a large percent of the labor workforce in order to increase labor wages to the point of personal self sustainability or would utilitarianism say that preserving the lives of all those laborers would be maximizing utility even if this means that collectively they all suffer a great deal?

Thanks for answering my hastily thought out 1:20 AM question based on the briefest of knowledge on economics and utilitarianism.