It's not, and shouldn't be, an emotional argument. It's an economical one.
Maybe if we stopped thinking of employees/contractors as "labor" and thought of them as people it would be easier to empathize with their needs. Do you think that your friends, family, and loved ones deserve a wage that meets their basic needs? Why shouldn't all humans deserve the same?
The primary purpose of a business is to maximize profits for its stakeholders.
On average, educated people contribute more value to the functioning of society. I can drive myself around. I can't perform my own heart surgery.
The argument that all humans are inherently equally valuable is specious reasoning. I can come up with all sorts of trolly car conundrums that if you were forced to choose, you'd make a value judgement about which person to save because they have more value.
There are many ways to cover your basic needs that don't require you to live on your own in a one-bedroom apartment and three square meals a day. In fact, most of humanity survived by pooling resources. The ability to live entirely on your own being common is a very recent phenomena as is three square meals a day.
All your stating is that people shouldn't have options where they can pool resources. As someone supporting two older adults in my household, you're saying that if they can't get hold a livable wage jobs (unlikely given that one has Parkinson's) but still still could earn money and contribute to the household. You've not made my circumstances harder by legislating away opportunities for them to contribute.
Healthcare should be provided to all by the government for free, but until then we must live under the system.
https://investorplace.com/2018/07/are-ceos-really-worth-what...
See also: https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-companies-pay-ceos-for-good...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highe...
If a job pays less than the cost of living in an area, then the job is somewhere between subsidized by the government or not economically viable.
