It shouldn't be any surprise that demanding physical labor jobs do in fact naturally pay more than minimum wage. Lots of people have physical limitations that prevent them from lugging sacks of concrete, yet they need and can afford things built with concrete.
If minimum wage is totally moot as you argue, what is the downside to abolishing it? It does not require someone to be consisently un or under employed over a number of years to prove that minimum wage laws contribute to unemployment.
Being out of work for 6-12 months, but willing and unable by minimum wage law to work for $5 an hour to put food on your family's table, would be a substantial and avoidable hardship.
Fortunately, in the real world that doesn't actually happen much, because those enterprising hard-working people can find under-the-table paid-in-cash work.
If minimum wage is totally moot as you argue, what is the downside to abolishing it? It does not require someone to be consisently un or under employed over a number of years to prove that minimum wage laws contribute to unemployment.
Being out of work for 6-12 months, but willing and unable by minimum wage law to work for $5 an hour to put food on your family's table, would be a substantial and avoidable hardship.
Fortunately, in the real world that doesn't actually happen much, because those enterprising hard-working people can find under-the-table paid-in-cash work.