> Minimum wage exclude and marginalize poor people

The elimination of minimum wage would marginalize poor people even more.

It's easy to think that the demand for labor is nearly infinite but at a super low wage. I mean, I'd gladly pay someone $2/hour to clean my house, and there are probably people desperate enough for money to buy food that they would do it. But minimum wage laws generally forbid it.

But consider employees at McDonalds. Walmart cashiers. Any other minimum wage job. If you eliminate the minimum wage, you create a race to the bottom. Eventually, you end up with people willing to flip burgers or work a cash register for $2/hour. They'll be living in a cardboard box with all their belongings in a shopping cart, but at least that $2/hour will buy them some semi-decent meals to survive.

Without a minimum wage, sure we'll probably see 0% unemployment, or something very close to it. But you'd end up absolutely tanking the median wage and standards of living. The term "working homeless" would replace the term "working poor" until some extremely low-quality housing popped up that someone could live in for $200/month.

  you create a race to the bottom

But this is true for everything where you can apply supply and demand, and there's always a balance between the two.

  you end up with people willing to flip burgers or work a cash register for $2/hour

But what happens in your scenario where there is a minimum wage law ? Those people magically make 5 times more ?

Do you think you can force business to hire at any rate ? Or does the rate needs to follow productivity and current standard of living indexes ? What if your increase this rate by 100x, what happens ?

   But you'd end up absolutely tanking the median wage and standards of living

If the scenario where people don't work for 2 USD/hour they have 0 of salary. So the second scenario where they work for 2 USD / hour makes everyone more rich, I would be more inclined to believe the median wage would increase, but that's a hard question. The most important is that people worked and sustained themselves.

> But what happens in your scenario where there is a minimum wage law ? Those people magically make 5 times more ?

....yes? Considering that's what we have right now? You don't need to imagine this scenario. We're in it right now. In Oregon, the minimum wage is $10.75/hour.

> Do you think you can force business to hire at any rate ? [...] What if your increase this rate by 100x, what happens ?

Obviously not. I knew someone would try to make this argument, but I think its absurd.

> Or does the rate needs to follow productivity and current standard of living indexes ?

I'd make it follow a standard of living index. What the standard should be is up for debate, but I think at a minimum, someone working 40 hours a week should be able to live in a studio apartment on their own and buy food without government assistance. Two people working 40 hours a week each should be able to have a 2-bedroom apartment while raising a kid.

> If the scenario where people don't work for 2 USD/hour they have 0 of salary. So the second scenario where they work for 2 USD / hour makes everyone more rich, I would be more inclined to believe the median wage would increase

You're forgetting that the people formerly making minimum wage would either have their wage reduced to the hypothetical $2/hour or end up being replaced by a worker willing to work for $2/hour.

If you lower or remove minimum wage, every minimum wage job will have a reduction in the wage. When an employer pays minimum wage, they're implicitly saying "I'd pay you less, but the government won't let me."

> The most important is that people worked and sustained themselves.

Only by a technical definition of "sustained".

  ....yes? Considering that's what we have right now? 

So if you have a magic law that force businesses to pay 5 times the normal productivity for free, then you must have a law that force businesses to pay 5000 times the normal productivity ? There must be something wrong

   You're forgetting that the people 

Yes I agree but then we need to look at new prices for consumers goods and services that will be lower. I don't think talking about median wage is very meaningful without comparing what you can buy with it

> I don't know which perfect egalitarian symmetric insert here another utopic adjective society you live in, but it's not certainly not mine

Societies make a decision to be as they are. If you're trying to say that you prefer an inequitable society, that's fine. If you're trying to say that nature is inequitable, and that society has some responsibility to coordinate with it to preserve that inequity, I'd say 1) that's a weird nature-religion, and 2) property rights protect the weak from the strong.

I am not saying any of those and I don't want to preserve inequity. I am worried by people trying to force society to be more equal, and in that process produce effect that are going in the opposite direction.

Unfortunately the chances of everyone are rigged because of each of our societies history and past injustices. That's something we need to deal with and it's a hard problem