I don't think should and ought enter the equation when discussing market economics.
Why not? Capitalist societies have should/ought discussions on economic questions all the time.
But beyond that, I was asking what you thought a fair wage would be in your world. You seem reticent to put a number on it, despite being apparently of the view that $70K is too low.
I am firmly of the belief that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if we allow corporations to run roughshod over the working class and abuse every lever at their disposal to depress wages, it is only fair that the employee should be seizing any advantage they can get in this ludicrously lopsided conflict.
This is a very black/white understanding of the situation. There is a reasonable range within which negotiations about wages and working conditions occur.
I also find it snobbish to look down on people with low paying jobs as less capable and less competent, and their work as less important. Every job requires a degree of skill and a range of competencies to be good at, we just have a habit of shoving people into low pay and low status jobs without caring very much whether they are any good at them, because the low cost of their wages is more important than any quality work they may or may not produce in their dead end positions.
I don't look down on people who have low skilled jobs at all. I simply recognize that realistically it makes sense that we reimburse people whose jobs require
greater skill at higher rates than people whose jobs require
less skill. Most people in low paying jobs are in jobs whose jobs require less skill, in broad strokes. If you think brain surgery requires the same skill and has the same value as an entry level fast food job...I really don't know what else to say? That's just not the case.