If The Minimum Wage Doesn't Benefit The Poor Then What's The Point Of Having The Minimum Wage?

It’s not often that I agree with the New York Times on matters economic and it might be all the way back in 1987 that I last agreed with it on the subject of the minimum wage. But miracles do happen and so has one here. The NYT was once right on the subject of that minimum wage. They both argued that sure, we want to increase the incomes of the working poor. But doing so will mean that we do the insisting on improving the incomes of those working poor do the paying for the improvement. And also that the correct level of the minimum wage was then and is now zero. Yes, that’s correct, the proper rate for the minimum wage is $0 per hour.
Here is that editorial:

The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00

And here’s part of their argument:

Perhaps the mistake here is to accept the limited terms of the debate. The working poor obviously deserve a better shake. But it should not surpass our ingenuity or generosity to help some of them without hurting others. Here are two means toward that end: Wage supplements. Government might subsidize low wages with cash or payments for medical insurance, pensions or Social Security taxes. Alternatively, Washington could enlarge the existing earned income tax credit, a ”negative” income tax paying up to $800 a year to working poor families. This would permit better targeting, since minimum-wage workers in affluent families would not be eligible.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/16/if-the-minimum-wage-doesnt-benefit-the-poor-then-whats-the-point-of-having-the-minimum-wage/?partner=yahootix