"They realized life is short and had time to reflect on what matters most."

Does that include rearing their own children? Are higher wages a good thing to the extent they make working outside the home more desirable than working inside it?

Employers are just intermediaries between their customers and their workers, work-brokers really. Will consumers pay the price of goods produced here by well-paid workers? Maybe, maybe not. There is no law of nature that says people will pay what they must so that others can earn what they must.

I traveled to Norway in 1978. Back then, American airports had "skycaps," porters, usually Black men, who took your bags off the carousel, put them on a cart, and ferried them to the taxi line. Bags did not have wheels. The practice was so wide-spread that guidebooks took the trouble to point out that no such service existed in Norway, because, to almost-quote the book I read, Scandinavians find such work beneath their dignity. The attitude may have been real, but attitude is often internalized economics.

There may have been no porters in Norway because no one would do the job for what passengers would pay to have it done. We need to understand that if we raise wages generally, crap jobs will not suddenly pay well; they will instead just go away. That's ok with me as a consumer, but we are not Norway in 1978. What are we going to do with all those people who price themselves out of the job market?

The question is not rhetorical. I'm not saying we should not get rid of ill-paying jobs. I am saying that the real challenge that faces us is maintaining social and economic stability if those now earning too little instead earn nothing. I believe a UBI must be part of the solution. Advocating higher wages while wishing away the resulting drop in consumption strikes me as unrealistic.