In the case of most US states, I think it's fair to say that the minimum wage is moot. As you say, hardly anyone would consider working for less than that anyway.
But why take away their freedom to do so?
Also is the goal to maximize the number in the workflow, or get people out of poverty? Having them work for less may increase employment figures but they'll still be in poverty. The minimum wage has shown to decrease employment but also lift the people employed out of poverty [1].
1. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage....
If some employer is currently paying e.g. $10/hour when the minimum wage is $7.25/hour, why would that change if the minimum wage were $5/hour or $0?
If anything they might have to pay more, because the employee might prefer a job paying $5/hour to one that pays $10/hour but incurs $6/hour worth of commuting expense and then the original employer would have to pay $11/hour to retain them.
> Also is the goal to maximize the number in the workflow, or get people out of poverty?
These are not unrelated goals. Generally people who can't find work end up in poverty.
> The minimum wage has shown to decrease employment but also lift the people employed out of poverty
You don't need a study for this, it's exactly what you would expect to happen. If you raise the minimum wage to $10, some jobs that pay $9 are still sustainable at $10, so those pay $10, some aren't, so those people lose their jobs. The proportionality of each one is going to depend on current economic conditions and not be a universal constant.
But the part where you cause people to lose their jobs is bad -- in some cases it will exceed the entire benefit of the remaining people getting paid more, but either way what it's competing with isn't placebo, it's alternative policies to get people out of poverty. Why would you do the one that causes people to lose their jobs when there are several alternatives that don't?
These fictional people who would love to work for less than $7.25/hr are free to do gig work that nets them less. They are also free to panhandle on the side of freeway off-ramps, which I imagine many would prefer to the concept of being paid $5/hour to take orders from a person who lacks enough respect for their fellow man to pay them more than that.
The removal of the minimum wage would simply be a gift to employers taken from the pockets of actual workers. Businesses don't just pay the minimum wage out of the kindness of their hearts; to pay that wage is code for "I would pay you less if I could."
>These fictional people who would love to work for less than $7.25/hr are free to do gig work that nets them less. They are also free to panhandle on the side of freeway off-ramps,
Being unable to work in a employment relationship, and forced to do "gig work" and "panhandle" doesn't count as "freedoms are being taken away"?
>The removal of the minimum wage would simply be a gift to employers taken from the pockets of actual workers. Businesses don't just pay the minimum wage out of the kindness of their hearts; to pay that wage is code for "I would pay you less if I could."
This is a case of fabricated options[1]. The possible outcomes aren't: a) worker makes $5/hr and b) worker gets makes $10/hr (the minimum wage). Sure, in some cases the employer might grumble but ultimately stump up the extra $5/hr, but it's also possible that the employer lets the worker worker go instead, automating his job or having his work shipped overseas instead.
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gNodQGNoPDjztasbh/lies-damn-...
Minimum wage laws don't do that. You're completely within your rights to volunteer your time for no compensation at all if you wish.
It's nit really "minimum" if companies can pay less legally.