Any other centrist atheists?

[Tiberius]

When is food the only necessity upon which one must spend money?

...I never said it was. Food just happens to be something which does not come as naturally to us as other things. It is easier to buy food and live under a bridge than it is to buy/rent a home and catch / grow your own food. Hence, in the list of things that I find "necessary", food is right there at the top.

The fact that many people making minimum wage also rely on government handouts (is it really a handout when you're paying income taxes) illustrates the problem of a low minimum wage.

I'm not sure about what the state of taxes is in the US, but in the UK nobody earning minimum wage is taxed, ergo it is a handout. The fact that people making minimum wage rely on government handout is a problem with corporatism in general, not a low minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage to, say, $20 an hour would not suddenly mean everyone could stop relying on government handouts for two reasons:

1) If an employer wants to keep its current workforce, it would have to start making more money to make up the loss of hiring people at the new rate, hence prices go up, and when they go up somewhere, they usually go up somewhere else, and somewhere else, etc. So, now everything costs more money...and we're back to people not having enough money for stuff.

2) Alternatively, if the employer decides that $20 is ridiculous to pay, and doesn't want to affect customers by upping the price of goods, they can make a large number of their workforce redundant and increase the amount of work the people left over have to do. This creates a number of unemployed people on welfare, whilst also making a harsher work environment for those who are left in a job.

I can never have a debate with you and not run into a semantics issue.

Seriously? How on earth was this a semantics issue? I'm not calling into question the definition of anything you've said. I simply pointed out that you recognized the reason why employers pay more than a minimum wage, but then failed to continue that through to the next logical conclusion. That's not semantics; that's just me pointing out flawed reasoning.

Yes, Wal-mart and stores like it do pay above minimum. Pennies above minimum. Enough so that it costs the company less than they get with the PR, not enough to make a difference to the employee. Hence, if Wal-Mart had the choice to pay an employee nothing, they would probably choose to toss them a couple of nickels.

Again, you recognize that companies do it, and they do it for PR, but then for some reason decide that if the minimum wage wasn't set, this would simply stop, and companies would now just pay pennies...and on top of that, you think people would actually accept this? Would you?

There is a reason to think this: that's how it already works. Target sets its starting wages based upon what competing Wal-Mart sets theirs, this is something I know for certain. If Wal-Mart lowballs, every bigbox retailer will certainly follow suit. Target, being slightly more classy, might toss out dimes instead of nickels. Good for them.

Can you verify this? If you really know it for certain I mean...

Look, it might work like this under the current system, but that is only because minimum wage is in effect. When corporatism is ended, and the market is actually run by consumers (as it always should have been), then things are a different ballpark. When corporations simply cannot afford to piss off their customers or employees, any company that tries to set wages to unacceptable levels is going to fail, and fail fast.

Also, I'm in favour of enforcing contract law. That is, if a company agrees your salary in a contract, they can't alter it unless both parties agree and sign a new contract.

Why should I believe that would happen if it is not happening now? Wal-Mart is infamous for their poor pay, but this has not ever led its competitors to attack them on this, because none of them do significantly better for their employees.

See above. When laws protect corporations rather than consumers or employees, corporations can do whatever the hell they like. I'm not saying we should get rid of the minimum wage in the current system; I'm arguing for an overhaul of the system itself.

You can leave for a competitor, if that competitor is hiring.

...and the great thing about large corporations is that they can always have vacancies, because they are always growing, and they obey the supply/demand of the market. If a large number of employees become available, especially if they come from a competitor, hiring those employees is going to give you a considerable boost in the market, both economically and from a public relations standpoint.

When I think of what the libertarian, free-market paradise would look like, what I see is Bangladesh.

Probably because you assume capitalism is similar to corporatism, where companies hold all the power. This is not the case.