The flaw in the argument is a basic type-error: Type MORAL does not match type FACTUAL.

I . . . think you must be thinking of someone else. I didn't make a moral argument. (Well, okay, I've made lots of moral arguments, but I haven't made a moral argument with you, in this thread. Yet. At the very least, the argument we're supposedly discussing isn't a moral one.)

First of all, which data?

The data we're supposedly talking about. My second link, like five posts ago. The one you criticized for having the word "Liberty" in the URL. ;)

Now, at the margin, does the minimum wage disemploy some people? Probably

Oh, so we actually agree. That's actually what I think, too: minimum-wage increases measurably increase unemployment among low-skilled people, but in the economy as a whole, the effect is lost in the underflow. I suspect it's still there, but . . . you're right, lots of variables.

Sorry for simplifying. I didn't mean to be misleading.

The reason I care about that particular unemployment effect is that minimum wage is supposed to help the people at the bottom. But if it causes unemployment for them, then I don't think it's really helping them. In fact, it's probably hurting some of them a lot. The fact that it doesn't affect the rest of the economy that much either way . . . I don't really care about that.

So, if we agree about that, you think we should have a minimum wage anyway because . . .

A) Any wage below a living wage is either slowly murdering the employee or taking an implicit subsidy

I disagree. Not every job is permanent, and not every job-seeker is independent. Some people don't need a living wage: teenagers, retirees, spouses, students. Some jobs aren't for income, but for reputation, experience, or skill-building. Some jobs are side jobs: supplemental income.

Low-paying jobs shouldn't be permanent, and they generally aren't. People move on (or get raises/promotions) as soon as they can do better.

And anyway, how is destroying the job a reasonable response? The person who took it clearly thinks it's his best option.

B) The wage-level that a given business can support at a given level of worker skills is determined by many different variables

Sure. I definitely agree with that. I don't see why you think it's a reason the minimum wage is a good idea, though.

Implicit subsidies for [low-skilled manual labor] distort the market, both by suppressing the natural organization of labor and by padding the profit margins of businesses that use labor to substitute for capital investment

I . . . can't really make sense if that sentence. I'm serious, I've been trying for like five minutes.

At a best guess, I think you're trying to say that eliminating low-skilled manual labor would force those sectors to replace the work with automation, which would make the world a better place for everyone. Maybe? I have no idea what you're saying about subsidies and unions, or how that ties in.

Regardless, that doesn't sound like a good idea to me. The minimum wage destroys jobs indiscriminately, and some things are easier to automate than others. Some businesses would adjust. Others would disappear.

And anyway, I think if your goal is to automate things, there are better ways. If you want the government to invest in infrastructure, for example, you won't get much argument from me. Or maybe start a business yourself and do it better? Surely there's a better way than hurting the poorest people in society.