You need to have a minimum wage that supports an individual. If you are worried about unemployment that can be fixed easily.
If somebody has been on benefits for 12 months. They have to take on a trade or some other training. Else there they can spend time in the defense forces. In addition set up a Government investment bank. So the people who come up with a bright idea (after there been educated/trained) can get it financed. You generate more business employ more people in a nutshell more competition.
Business laws need to be relaxed. Why do I need to have a turn over of at least 80,000 to be registered for GST?. If I'm not registered for GST I can't run a business. No one will deal with me as then they can't claim GST input credits. It reduces competition. Isn't competition the end game for a free democratic capitalist society? Or are we just protecting the fat cats at the top end?

Dear Andrew,

<<I don’t want to live in a nation where adults can be paid as little as $5 an hour for their labour.>>

If I were to list all my "I don't want to live in a nation where..." statements, then 350 words would not be enough, not even 10,000.

But it is not up to me, nobody asks me and nobody is obliged to even listen to my dislikes, how more so to eliminate them. What other people do or don't is none of my business.

So while I appreciate your sentiment about disliking people being money-poor, that gives you no right to control other people, or else that would render you morally-poor.

Given two people who live peacefully and in harmony, who probably never even volunteered or consented to belong to your 'nation' thing (you just happen to count them in without their permission), make a friendly private deal between them, something like "I will do this for you for so many hours and you will give me that many dollars" (that's the simplest form, the deal could of course include other elements as well), you have absolutely no right to tell them "No you won't because I don't like it, so if you do so, I'll send my thugs after you to throw you in jail (and kill you if you resist them)".

As an individual yourself who feels as you do, you have of course every right to decide: "I will never talk with or befriend anyone who pays another only $5/hour or who only asks for $5/hour for their work" - perhaps they never wanted to have anything to do with you either.

Note that the above applies only to individuals, rather than to bodies legally incorporated by the state (which most employers are), as the later, by incorporating, have voluntarily accepted the state's authority and favours, hence there is nothing fundamentally wrong with them also needing to accept its rules.

Yuyutsu

You are throwing around a whole lot of libertarian-esque piffle to justify the right to exploit desperate people - indeed to create the very social conditions that spawn desperate people.

OK, sure. I could freely offer two bucks an hour to an unemployed guy or single mum to do some work for me and they can freely tell me to find a cliff and jump off it. But that's not the point.

Lowering or abolishing the national minimum wage creates a national work environment in which that unemployed guy or single mum has no alternative but to accept my offer, because the next offer will be just as low. According to those who advocate this system of neo-slavery, that guy and that mum should feel grateful to me - Ms Bountiful - to be given the opportunity to keep starvation at bay and/or sleep under a roof for just one more day.

Andrew Leigh

I'm with you, mate. I would be deeply ashamed to live in a country 'where adults can be paid as little as $5 an hour for their labour'.

Dear Killarney,

<<creates a national work environment in which...>>

That says it all: in order to achieve certain national-goals, albeit undoubtedly noble on their own, you have no misgivings about dictating to others how to live, including others who never even consented to belong to your 'nation'.

There's of course nothing wrong in creating a national environment for and among those who voluntarily wish to belong to your nation.

One of the main features an advanced nation offers is welfare. Should your single-mum wish to have the protection of the nation, all she needs is to ask! In this recent-thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15791 I'm totally in favour of ensuring that this single-mum will never need to go hungry.

Your unemployed-single-mum also has recourse to unions who would prevent their members from working for Ms. Bountiful; She could even, for example, tell everyone else who's willing to listen, how bad Ms. Bountiful is and ask them to stop talking or conducting business with her - that would be perfectly legitimate.

What is illegitimate, is to use of police to drag Ms. Bountiful to jail, who have done no harm to anyone. Ms. Bountiful has the perfect right to not be part of your nation and to refrain from contributing towards its goals (whether actual or perceived).

Had Ms. Bountiful ever asked any favour from your nation/state (such as incorporation), then your nation/state would have the right to ask for things in return, such as observing minimum-wage laws. Assuming she hasn't, you would be building your nation on a foundation of cruel violence.

The last thing I want is slavery, but that includes slavery to a nation, so here is another example: A free-standing Kibbutz-like community wants to be isolated from the rest of society. They own their land, share their food and don't allow outsiders in. Due to their isolation, the amount of money circulating in the community is limited, so both their wages and commodity-prices are significantly lower than outside. Technically, that would be against current minimum-wage laws, but it ignores the fact that everything is cheaper there and food is shared.

fancynancy, The Future, Andrew

If minimum wage laws don’t cause unemployment, why not make the minimum wage $100 per hour? That would be an even more liveable wage, wouldn't it?