> I'm not following your logic, are you suggesting you wouldn't ask for a raise?
A raise is a negotiation. You ask for a raise, they say yes or no. If they say no, you go find another job that pays what you want, and you take that one instead. Which is why, when you have that option, they may say yes to begin with.
> That may mean better services to provide jobs or providing a minimum pay with which basic needs can be guaranteed.
Expecting this to be provided by the employer of last resort is ridiculously inefficient.
The underlying problem is that the cost of living is more than the value of the labor of some people. The two main solutions that are to reduce the cost of living (e.g. housing costs), or to give up and subsidize their compensation somehow as a humanitarian gesture. The first is vastly preferable, but even when you resign yourself to the second, you want something like a UBI rather than price controls because it spreads the burden more evenly across everyone rather than imposing it only on the companies who employ the people at the bottom.
Price controls, by contrast, create a bunch of weird cliffs and perverse incentives. They cause reductions in hours or unemployment, and they're arbitrary lines. So if you raise the minimum to $10 then you do nothing for someone who is currently making $10, even though they're struggling too and it would be preferable for them to have some assistance as well. e.g. because they receive the same UBI but since they make more money than the person making $6 they also pay proportionally more taxes and give a small amount of it back. The person making $25/hour ends up paying even more taxes, and so on, until the taxes exceed the UBI.
Whereas if you raise the minimum to $25 to try to also help the person at $10 then you cause a lot more unemployment.