Whether or not there was an agreement, that doesn't mean one party can't be exploiting the other. Someone desperate for a job may take an extremely low paying job where they are making less than they deserve, and removing minimum wage gives corporations a greater ability to exploit their worker's. I don't trust corporations enough to give them 100% freedom of choice. Honestly, there really aren't many jobs that can justify paying someone less than minimum wage...

Forgive me if I misunderstood your statement...It was not exactly worded as clearly as it could have been

"If proponents of the higher minimum wage were simply wrongheaded people of good will, they would not stop at $3 or $4 an hour, but indeed would pursue their dimwit logic into the stratosphere.

The fact is that they have always been shrewd enough to stop their minimum wage demands at the point where only marginal workers are affected, and where there is no danger of disemploying, for example, white adult male workers with union seniority. When we see that the most ardent advocates of the minimum wage law have been the AFL-CIO, and that the concrete effect of the minimum wage laws has been to cripple the low-wage competition of the marginal workers as against higher-wage workers with union seniority, the true motivation of the agitation for the minimum wage becomes apparent." - The Free Market, Dec 1988, Murray Rothbard

Good. Minimum wage shouldn't exist.

>Whether or not there was an agreement, that doesn't mean one party can't be exploiting the other.

This idea of "exploitation" is frivolous. When I buy a loaf of bread from the store for $5, it means I prefer having the bread over having the $5. I'm not exploiting the store: mutatis mutandus, the store prefers having $5 over having the loaf of bread. It's the same with an employee and an employer voluntarily exchanging labor for money.

But when the only store in your vicinity buys/makes the bread for $0.50 and sells it for $10, when a reasonable markup would be $3, that is exploitation of the consumer. When the decision is between "eat for a ridiculous fee" and "don't eat", its a pretty simple decision, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an exploitative relationship. 

PS: The quote button is quite useful here, because it lets me know when you've replied to me...

Shame America isn't a nice small country like Switzerland. 

There are three choices

(1) Buy it, and eat

(2) Don't buy it, and don't eat

(3) Commit robbery by threatening to fine, shoot, or imprison the current owner of the bread, or empower someone else to commit violence for you so you don't get your hands dirty.

I would reject option #3 as being immoral: being "exploited" because you don't like something doesn't justify violence.

Oh, there are few other moral, non-violent options:

(4) Go to a different location and buy a different piece of bread.
(5) Get together with 100 other people to hire a taxi to bring back cheap loafs of bread to your vicinity.
(5) Open up a store that sells the bread for $9; completely undercutting the "exploiting" shop. But there are probably 10 other people already working this already since they want to make the $8.50 profit / loaf. Maybe you should aim for a price of $8. Or $7. Etc.

Ah, Mises. Why not just start quoting John Galt's monologue whole-cloth and drop the pretenses?

Ah, but there will always be other customers and other loaves of bread. This does not hold true for employers. Your skills can be poorly matched for the job market, or in a small market monopolized by a few large employers who then abuse the fact that labor is abundant but employment is scarce.

Capitalism's biggest failure is the problem in dealing with abundance: a saturated market on one end leaves the other end with great power, and this holds quite true for the labor market. Too many laborers and too few employers then means that the latter will exploit the former, and when there are few or no options for employment, the laborer is forced to choose between a number of bad choices, and so misery is created, along with poor opportunities for economic growth (miserable, impoverished workers can't consume what is made, and so businesses do not grow).