This all ties together, I promise. It is long, but feels necessary in order to communicate. Bear with me. I apologize in advance.
In my other comment[0] I note how there's an S-like curve. The reason this is important because there's some dependencies in the "get a new job" argument that may not be experienced depending where you are on that curve. There is a certain threshold on the low end where this is quite difficult. Getting a new job has a time, risk, and energy component to it. Worse, there's often a compounding factor: employment history. That creates momentum and it is a powerful force. There's also environment (good luck getting a good job in a small town) but we'll leave that out (also note some areas have very low density: see American and Canada). You can probably see how the model complexifies quickly even just accounting for a few things. This is important to think about because the truth of the matter is that we're both products of ourselves as well as our environments. If you counterfactually took extremely successful people and placed them in different environments the likelihood that they achieve success (not even of the same level) changes dramatically.
But again, my comment tries to turn a focus to the floor rather than ceiling. You say force, as if this imposition is always bad, but there's many things we're forced to do. There's also positive (imposition required to grant you these rights: e.g. access to education, access to food, access to a job) and negative rights (imposition is required to take away the right: e.g. life, liberty, property, free speech). I bring this up because your language suggests a potential inconsistency that is not very apparent. All societies are composed of positive and negative rights, with America particularly focused on negative rights. But we need to recognize that the right to a job is a positive one in the first place. You don't naturally have a job and naturally you don't have the right to be paid for by someone that asks you to work, even contractually. Positive rights are required for essentially all things that are punishable. Ponzi schemes are illegal because you have a positive right to not be swindled. Theft (swindling) is where things get complicated (hang on, I promise we're going somewhere). From the perspective of a thief, they have a natural negative right of free will that must be imposed upon to criminalize their actions. But from the perspective of the victim they have a negative right to their own property who the thief imposed upon them to take away the god given right of property. The negative right of free agency vs the negative right of possession of property! Both are god given! A doozy, I know. We can even see our solution is a positive right, where the victim has a right to protection (police)!
So coming back to that forcing of compensation, and why I focus on the floor. We have the negative rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But from above, we can see that these can be viewed as both negative rights (typically) AND positive rights! This is because for an individual to maintain their negative right to these things the government (society) must provide a positive right of protection wherein a malicious actor's right to free agency must be imposed upon! And that's where we're at with this issue of compensation. Society has imposed upon us certain conditions wherein money is essentially necessary for the majority of us to live in the majority of social situations (rabbit hole) and so to balance the important god given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness the federal government imposes a minimum wage for fair compensation such that labor is appropriately compensated, people are not swindled, and liberty is maintained (not a binary option of freedom vs slavery, there is a spectrum).
You may say that the employer has the right to free agency, and I can respect that god given natural right, but I also believe that the employee has the right to liberty, a different god given natural right. But there's also a spectrum here. I believe the employee has a positive right to fair wages (imposition to obtain) necessary to achieve their god given rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. At the same time, I do not think they have a positive right to excessive wealth, and that such a right would be too much of an imposition on the employer's god given right to free agency, which was even necessary to protect the the employee's right to liberty and PoH. This is is what my initial response to you and the other comment[0] are about. The miscommunication is happening because people are viewing different perspectives of these rights, which we can see as from the employee or employer. You're viewing the employer's natural right to free agency, requesting that it not be imposed upon, and seeing the employee's positive right to compensation. Totally understandable! We want to protect natural rights and free agency is an important one! But you need to _also_ view the perspective of a employee's natural rights to liberty (spectrum!) and PoH! Society has imposed upon us things that remove those rights, and you can argue that positive rights through the government returns these to us (but at a cost).
This is why we keep fighting about these things, because we've limited our perspectives and the truth of the matter is that this is a complicated fucking mess (understatement). We have to look at a lot of different perspectives (these are arguably the most important two), but we humans aren't great at that and our conversations encourage us to view only from one side. The point of social structures like governments are to balance these impositions in an agreeable way. From this framing we fail when we binarize those impositions, as reality is that the extremes don't exist in practice.
This is also why I place focus on the floor, as it is an important point for such a discussion of balance. It asks "what the _minimum_ positive rights that must be granted to an individual to restore an acceptable amount of the negative rights that have be removed from them." That's a complex question, and not universal either. It doesn't ask to maximize negative rights either (but we can frame it that way if we add constraints). Many people try to address the underlying issue here through a different perspective, such as taxation, which I think we'll agree is an imposition to one's right to property. But this is not the dual of the problem I presented, and don't make that mistake. The dual is "what are the minimum impositions on free agency that must be imposed to grant an individual an acceptable amount of negative rights that have been taken from them?" Note that there are two more dual problems as the discussion above should illustrate that even from the perspective of one side we can frame a negative right as a positive right, so these typically have 4 equivalent statements when discussing 2 agent systems.
I apologize for the wall of text. But unfortunately it felt necessary so that we can reframe and discuss on the same page. I'm pretty open to disagreement, so feel free. But I'm also not sure I made a clear mark in the sand as I haven't said where that balance should be (but note that your framing has), and honestly I don't know. But I do think we should figure that out as a collective, but we need to first accurately describe the problem.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36366924