Simplistically: people can either work or not work. Nearly everyone will chose "work" because it's nice to feel useful, even if that work doesn't pay a living wage.
If people are not earning a living wage, societies can either let them die in the street or subsidize them. Most societies will choose the later, because they're made of humans and not monsters.
That means that there really is a minimum wage, but it's paid in part or in full by the society. Companies that pay less than a living wage exploit the "humans don't like watching children starve to death" vulnerability and effectively steal from society. Additionally, paying a lower wage lets them offer a lower price to consumers which can drive out companies that were paying their customers an actual wage.
Whether or not the statement "nearly everyone will chose to "work" is true, the problem that must be solves is how to incentivize someone to do the work that no one wants to do.
It's entirely possible that providing a "living" wage to a food delivery person just isn't worth it for consumers so they would rather just go get it themselves.
The conundrum is creating a system where there enough incentive is created to do the work no one wants, but at the same time distribute resources so that everyone is provided some definition of "standard of living". This is difficult when the value of (most) human's work is ever decreasing.
If people are not earning a living wage, societies can either let them die in the street or subsidize them. Most societies will choose the later, because they're made of humans and not monsters.
That means that there really is a minimum wage, but it's paid in part or in full by the society. Companies that pay less than a living wage exploit the "humans don't like watching children starve to death" vulnerability and effectively steal from society. Additionally, paying a lower wage lets them offer a lower price to consumers which can drive out companies that were paying their customers an actual wage.