I struggle with your write up even though I genuinely respect you as an individual, I think its your understanding of economics that makes queesy. On one breath you denounce socialism, but with the same breath, you seem to inadvertently advocate for socialism for businesses. Also you often seem to conflate supply and demand issues. I mentioned this earlier in another post where you did the same thing.
In a capitalistic sense, the parts in bold are the only thing matters. If I was being extreme, everything else you have brought up is arguably socialistic. Wage is just price point for labor. Like every other market, there is demand and supply. Human beings supply labor, businesses demand labor. People are not paid what the market pays for the job "expectations" (even though that's how it looks to an individual employer when he is trying to set the wage rate), rather people are paid what how supply and demand for that type of labor in that market shakes out. It is not education, expectations, job difficulty or etc that determines wages. It is just supply and demand of labor in that market. That's it.
So for the person on the supply side, all he has to consider is, is the wage being offered a worthy use of my time or not. If they are skipping school or work to go surf, the person is saying the wage on offer is not worth giving up my fun time for. It is not a moral failure, it is not laziness, it is just what it is, there isn't enough signal (wage) in the market to justify to that person that is a worthy use of their time.
In the micro sense, if you can't find workers, you are not offering enough wages, perhaps the employer is stuck on what they think wages should be rather than what the market thinks it ought to be. If the wages go high enough, demand and supply will equilibrate.
That said in the macro sense, can there be longer term structural issues? Yes there can. People trained for one type of job which have now disappeared (e.g. what happened to all those horse industry folks after automobile), and are not adequately trained for the types of jobs currently available. Or perhaps as a whole the whole country does not even have enough people. I would still say in the long run, the market solves this problem. The industries that have higher growth will offer higher wages relative to declining , and therefore incentivize people to go train for it. There are things government, as a collective, can do to ameliorate things in the short run. But if we collectively do nothing, let's not act suprise to see the effects of those structural mismatches. It is intellectual lazy to attribute these structural issues to laziness or moral failures.. Perhaps, it makes the utterer feel smug and self-righteous.