Is it that difficult to grasp?! You're missing the part where the people in charge of this "natural" process have their thumbs on the fucking scale.

Don't cherry pick economic theory to make this yet another "blame the workers" bullshit story. Supply and demand are economic constants in a microeconomy for theoretical modelling purposes, not a quotable to explain why things are the way they are.

As soon as you start adding in stuff like real people with real, non-economic needs, the model breaks in the real world.

See, for example, the Finnish approach to housing that reflects social needs rather than economic outcome for model that doesn't end up with us plebs all on the bottom.

Nice theory you got there, shame it doesn't bear out in practice. In normal labour conditions workers have no leverage over employers to demand higher wages because workers have to take any job available in order to avoid homelessness and hunger. Workers demand for jobs is inelastic. Only in labour shortage scenarios workers have leverage to demand higher wages. But even then industry consolidation counteracts that because large corporations not only have price setting market power in the consumer market but also in the labour market. This is why the only consistent way to create similar leverage for worker in the labour market is unionization. Wages have never grown significantly enough to chip away wealth inequality except in the presence of strong and wide unionization. This is the main reason why increased labour productivity decoupled from wage increases since the 70s and 80s, when union busting started picking up around the world.

Rapidly increasing labour supply can make wages worse but that's not the main driver as there have been periods where wages have both been increasing with significant immigration and also others where wages were stagnant without significant immigration.