Absolutely false. People will always work at the highest wage they can obtain unless they value their time above what that wage. No government assistance leads to even more people working for $1/hr because they're even more desperate.
Government benefits lower the floor so low that people literally couldn't live if they were paid solely in wages rather than wages + benefits.
I know that libertarian types like to pretend government regulations just appeared into reality suddenly, without anything provoking them. But the reality is, most government regulations were put in place to save people from unsafe conditions that the free market exploited.
- markets are efficient
- people are rational
- everyone has perfect information
- there are no power imbalances
Aside: Do you play poker? I've started to wonder if Freedom Markets™ advocates are familiar with that kind of meta thinking.
I don't know how you're even supposed to go from such a premise that is demonstrably, empirically false.
Bare survival is very cheap in America.
There are niches wherein some can survive on little because they can rent a room or stay with family, because they don't have medical issues and can go without insurance etc etc. These are situational factors that don't scale to a whole society or even the whole of an individuals life.
The poor often go largely without healthcare. Their health deteriorates severely, but it's better than just starving to death. A lot of people have very long bus commutes to work because they can't afford a car or housing close to their workplace or to the best public transportation. Their credit score is probably no good, so they can't get a loan on a "cheapish" car. So if they do get a car, they're stuck maintaining a beater.
They may not have living parents who can help them, or their parents may be just as poor as they are.
Your assumptions are all based on a middle-class individual from middle-class upbringing. That doesn't make any sense when we're talking about the plight of the poor, who are the ones most affected by government assistance, minimum wage, etc.
Indoor shelter isn't necessary for survival. Motor vehicles aren't essential for survival. And you go to the ER and get emergency care if you're in trouble.
The base line for survival is pretty low. It's just "continue to not be dead".
All of this is just to say that, empirically, I have seen the following to not be true in the sense that you mean it (required to live being short for "required to live a decent standard of living"), though it is true in the literal sense that I described it:
> In a truly free market with no government fingers on the scale no worker would ever work for less than is required to live or at least they wouldn't work for long at such a wage.
People factor in the assistance they expect to receive when taking a job in terms of food, healthcare, and money when they take a job that will with assistance provide them the means to live. It is not unheard of at some low paying employers to guide new employees to benefit programs to help them meet their needs.
In effect such programs reduce the market clearing price for labor at the expense of other tax payers. Such program often require that the recipients work but not for how much. At the limit sufficiently generous benefits could inspire someone to work for $1 per year and you could subsidize taco bells entire workforce but the minimum wage and the limits of federal dollars both prevent this.