I agree, if we compare apples to apples. Let me assume that we agree that what's thought/felt to be "fair" is subjective & differs from person to person, place to place. Also, I assume you meant the legally defined min wage of $10.
The legal min wage is an arbitrary number that applies to simple manual-labor. It doesn't consider important factors such as level of skill, difficulty of work, rarity of skill, or supply vs demand. I submit that those factors are super-important in art work as opposed to common labor. As such, art & manual-labor pay rates are apples to oranges, really.
Bottom line, I think, must be that each artist is content with the pay they get for their work, whether it be per hour or per piece. I choose "content" vs "happy" deliberately.
If hourly income is a personally important factor then an artist definitely should give thought to that when deciding what to charge, or even whether to accept or decline a bit of work. Their demoralizing conclusion, unfortunately, might be that art is a waste of their time if other employment brings much better hourly income. THAT, plus the risk of pricing themselves out of winning any work at all, are the reasons I tremble at hourly pay figuring too strongly for an artist who isn't already famous.