But you're looking at this from the point of view of the environment where automation has always created far more work than what was replaced. In fact, up to this point, automation has created so much work that we even reached a point where the male half of the population could not handle doing it all and we had to start integrating women, who historically were not involved, into the workplace. Minimum wage is working out just fine right now because every time a job is automated, several new jobs appear to take its place.
Previous comments have suggested this trend will not last. Be it that AI will reach a point where it is capable of taking on any new job that we throw at it, or that we will simply run out of new ideas for new kinds of jobs at some point in the future. That is the context being discussed above. In that case, your options are: Compete against automation on price, or go without work entirely. Minimum wage prevents the former, leaving only the latter as an option. The parent is saying it is less ideal to have a $0 income than it is to have a less than minimum, but above zero, income.
But that all hinges on the assumption that work will dry up. The opposite has held true for centuries. It seems highly unlikely that this time is any different. I sincerely doubt we have reached the pinnacle of human achievement already.
No, it makes much more financial sense to not work and earn 0 while getting income with begging or criminal actions than work 10h/day for 1/3 of minimum wage that is for sure not enough to survive.
In my country, according to income data provided by the national data collection agency, ~14% of the adult population make less than $10,000 per year. Minimum wage where I am is $14/hr (with some variation across the entire country). Someone working full-time at minimum wage will earn just shy of $30,000 here. Very conveniently, the yearly earnings of that 14% of the population works out to your chosen 1/3 of minimum wage figure almost exactly.
I haven't heard any reports of 14% of adults dying off each year due to not making enough money, and that would be a pretty big news story, so it seems that they have somehow managed to survive. And while the data indicates that some have chosen $0 (~4%), and maybe a life of begging and crime (the data is not sufficient to see that correlation), it seems some dollar value greater than zero is still the preferred option for most even when their earning potential is limited.
Previous comments have suggested this trend will not last. Be it that AI will reach a point where it is capable of taking on any new job that we throw at it, or that we will simply run out of new ideas for new kinds of jobs at some point in the future. That is the context being discussed above. In that case, your options are: Compete against automation on price, or go without work entirely. Minimum wage prevents the former, leaving only the latter as an option. The parent is saying it is less ideal to have a $0 income than it is to have a less than minimum, but above zero, income.
But that all hinges on the assumption that work will dry up. The opposite has held true for centuries. It seems highly unlikely that this time is any different. I sincerely doubt we have reached the pinnacle of human achievement already.