> Minimum wage laws in general have never protected anyone. If there is another job available to you that pays more than minimum wage and is otherwise on equally favorable terms, you would have taken that one regardless of whether a lower paying job is available.
That "if" there is doing a lot of work. I think you underestimate how many people out there are in a situation where it's the job they have or the street. Not everyone has the option to just go pick another job, and the people that don't is heavily skewed towards the people with the worst jobs.
> That "if" there is doing a lot of work. I think you underestimate how many people out there are in a situation where it's the job they have or the street.
That's making the opposite case from the one you want. You take away the lower paying job when it was the only one available and now they're on the street because there is no alternative.
"Fortunately", in more cases than not the "if" was the actual. This is geometry: If there is one viable employer within 50 miles of where you live then statistically there are four within 100 miles, 9 within 150 miles and 16 within 200 miles, because area is pi r^2. So if you take away the first job there is a large chance that there is a second one with a much worse commute. But the commute is going to more than eliminate any value from getting paid slightly more, which is why they didn't take that job to begin with.
That "if" there is doing a lot of work. I think you underestimate how many people out there are in a situation where it's the job they have or the street. Not everyone has the option to just go pick another job, and the people that don't is heavily skewed towards the people with the worst jobs.