Putting aside the exact figure of $34/hr—because after all I can acknowledge that such a jump is hard to imagine and wouldn’t be necessary in low CoL areas—can we discuss your logic?

This is a genuine question: if someone spends 40hr/week doing anything productive for a profitable company, why wouldn’t that person deserve to support themselves from that? I agree that they shouldn’t expect to “prosper” to the extent that higher up employees might, but I think that in this context “prosper” simply means to be able to comfortably live. Do you really believe that’s too much to ask for anyone that’s working full time, regardless of how simply their role is?

I can’t imagine an argument for this viewpoint that doesn’t rely on a false assumption of scarcity. We have enough food and homes for everyone, the issue is just how uneven the distribution is. There’s no reason that millionaires couldn’t still exist with virtually unlimited money, multiple houses, etc. and middle class people couldn’t still have comfortable lives with disposable income in a society where minimum wage workers are also able to afford to live off one job.

The idea that the suffering of the people below you is the only way for you to be comfortable is a lie told to you by the people above you. The trade off shouldn’t have to be the quality of life for people like me and you, it should only affect the bottom line of the top 1%.

Personally I put more value on lazy, unskilled people being able to live than I put on some billionaire to buy a third yacht and a fourth house.