These policies are always double edged swords. The other way to frame minimum wage is that it makes it illegal to work unless you can produce $X value per hour.
Let’s say I’m a widget maker. I can make 10 widgets per hour for my company, and they in then earn $1 profit per widget. This company is not going to pay me $15/hr if I’m only able to generate $10/hr in value for the business. But if minimum wage is $15 then it makes it illegal for me to work for them.
Now if you want to talk about how larger companies have better unit-economics, and small companies can suffer with high minimum wage, then we can certainly have that conversation.
Wages are a cost to a company. There are other costs to a company. Companies also return a profit to the owners. If a company's costs are too high, they my not return a profit; they may not be able to pay their creditors.
My dad ran his own very small business. I am familiar with a business not making a profit for a period of time. I am familiar with workers who are not profitable to employ.
It is a reduction to absurdity to state that minimum wage "makes it illegal to work unless you can produce $X value per hour."
There are interesting, non-absurd discussions about the effects of minimum wage, but this is not one of them.
The number of employers seeking such an arrangement is so small it's irrelevant. In practice, not being able to pay people less that $15/hour means you won't hire people who bring less that $15/hour of value.
Minimum wage essentially requires tariffs, as long as the world doesn't have equal income. If people are only willing to pay a $1 for a shirt, but to make it in the US will require to charge $2, but the same shirt in China will only cost $0.50, what will happen? Now instead of having a factory with low wage employees, you have no factory, no employees, no supply chain.