What's a Louis Vuitton dress worth?

Not as much as it costs, apparently. This is from a few weeks ago, but since I missed it then I hope you'll take a look at it now. It's this kind of thinking that leads people to rail against "excessive" corporate profits. I don't understand this personally; unless they're operating a government-enforced monopoly or are using slave labor, then the transactions by which they made that money were all adjudged by the people who made them to be in their best interests. Do we really want government to be in the business of telling people that, "no, darn it, you shouldn't buy that coat -- it's way overpriced?" Personally, I think advertising on Daily Kos costs too much; they should be forced to lower their rates.

However, that's exactly what some are trying to do with "living-wage" legislation. Now, I understand that the analogy doesn't apply perfectly because employers have much more market power than minimum-wage employees, but, give me a break. Do we really want to really want to open ourselves up to the market-distorting effects of a high minimum wage because we as a society would rather make the decision of what wage to seek on people's behalf?
Can't the argument also be made that sub-"living-wage" wages are what makes middle-class living possible? If the production expenses of the goods we want are increased, they'll cost more and we'll just inflation, not any increase in our standard of living.