That isn't an argument. When something starts is irrelevant. What's relevant is if it works and wether or not it is compatible with rights.
If you can demand that an employer pay his workers a wage over and above what he and his workers have agreeded upon then it logically follows that somebody can demand that you pay a price for groceries over and above what you and the supermarket have agreed upon.
Gov't has always had to regulate business.
Government hasn't had to do anything. Government does what those in power want it to do. If those in power want to plunder then that's what government does. If those in power want to advance an agenda at the expense of taxpayers then that's what government does. If those in power believe in free-entrprise and competition then government stays out of the way.
In "Libertarian World", gov'ts aren't supposed to do this, but that is "theory".
In a Libertarian society government would be confined to two duties: 1) protecting people and their property, 2) maintaining justice.
The real world works differently. Put down Ayn Rand for a while dude, and read something like "Common Things", or "Nickle and Dimed in America", or "Chasing the Red, White, and Blue."
None of that is an argument.
I maintain that paying a livable wage is justice. It is what one deserves. Some employers are not nice people and will try to screw their workers by paying based on the NEED of the employee, not the MERIT of the employee. Minwage is simply a floor, which sets a minimum, beyond which the employer may not screw his employee. (And please don't pull that 'But they can always leave' canard. Practically, they can't always leave any more than you could be requested to leave for an uncharted desert isle where you can make your own rules.)
" None of that is an argument."
True. It is advice from an ex-Randite cultist who got deprogrammed and can now see the light. Balance out your reading and you will gain insight as I did. parsy the altruistic enlightener.