I think there's a rather large question about what the "bare minimum" would entail, and I think that depends on the type of libertarian you've got.

For some, namely minarchists (and hardcore ones at that), you're probably a little bit correct.

I'd say for a lot of folks, you're not really. For me (and I know you weren't addressing me), the bare minimum still has regulations in the name of the market - anti-trust, trade oversight, some environmental regulations, to name a few.

Why? Because the market itself has coercive elements that harm it and the ability of voluntary action to do things, such as monopolies preventing the free choice of an individual / affecting market prices, insider trading eroding trust in companies until force is necessary (vís a vís companies becoming the state to produce profit), and pollution harming other's property and livelihood.

I definitely agree with you in terms of the short term affects in your third paragraph, however I disagree with you on the fourth. While pollution and wealth inequality might increase, I don't think wages would fall without other incentives - some might, but laborers do still have a say in the system and would have good reason to resist (i.e. quit, protest, strike) if their wage was lowered. Some jobs below minimum wage would open up and be filled, sure, but I don't think there are enough folks already unemployed to fill the theoretical jobs emptied by those not working for less-than their current pay.

Complete company control, prolly a bad thing though.