Correct.
The market always sets prices (including wages) regardless of legislation, because a trade is, by definition, entered into willingly by both parties.
If either party is forced, it is not a trade - it is something else - it us government redistribution.
Setting a minimum wage means those who were earning less than that will lose their jobs, and others will receive a slight raise for assuming their duties.
For example, let’s say a shopkeeper is paying two people worth $8/hr to sweep the floor, and two people worth $16/hr to work the registers. Total cost $48/hr for $48/hr worth of work.
Then a federal $15/hr minimum wage is imposed.
The shopkeeper will have a choice: either pay the floor sweepers nearly twice what the market says they are worth, throwing $14 of profit per hour right down the drain, or restructure his workforce.
He really has no choice: he will immediately fire the two who are worth $8/hr, and hire a third person worth $16/hr to sweep the floors.
Thus, he will still be paying $48/hr for $48/hr worth of work, yet be perfectly legal - the only difference is two low skilled people lose their jobs - the very people the minimum wage was supposed to help.
It won’t take the shopkeeper even two seconds to figure this out - and the shopkeeper will have no choice. And it won’t just be that shopkeeper, it will be every shopkeeper and every employer of low skilled workers in the nation.
And then somebody kills and robs the shopkeeper.
Theory people often sit behind a single tree.
Practice people see the whole forest.
As wealth continues to be concentrated, this country risks more riots and foolish government policies.
The truth is that we don’t need a minimum wage law if they simply would stop immigration period.