Jeff is right on target here, once again. It always amazes me that government believes it can suspend the laws of economics, so long as their intentions are pure. This hurts many people, and is most certainly a part of the reason we have so many fewer people working today.

Jeff, why don't we bring back slavery. That would be cheaper yet.

The "laws of economics", I have always loved the phrase. As if economics were a science. I hate to break the bad news but economics are about as predictable as weather. There are merely some basic principles. I create something charge as much as possible. If I sell enough I hire people to make more and I pay them as little as possible so I can make more. If society lets me I make you work for nothing, if slavery is out then I pay you as little as possible, regardless of how much I make. Nice simple, basic gilded age economics. In the modern world workers unite form unions and get higher pay. Producers gather together gain control of govt. and bust up the unions, support massive immigration, move out of the country that gave them birth and say it is economics. It sure is and that is why the father of capitalism Adam Smith said the govt. must bring morality and ethics to the table. Ah, but here in America morality and ethics in business is being soft not hard core. (NP) So go ahead dump the minimum wage and the guy making 20 pr. hr will see his rate go down and so on down the line. Play the fool. Just remember I told you so.

People need some incentive to work. New Paragraph. Republicans are fine with a social safety net, as long as someone is shining their shoes and saying "Yes SA!"

Yes, economics is not as exact a science as physics. But at least economists look at data and evidence before making the kinds of assertions you are making. Think about it. How likely is it that an employer will hire and retain a high school grad who is barely literate if the government mandates that the employee be paid $15 per hour instead of $8 per hour?

"Ozark" First of all economists have no problem with the minimum wage except those on the extreme such as the Austrian school. Second one of the purposes of govt. as stated by Smith is to ensure that "capital" does not behave in an onerous or immoral fashion. The purpose of such laws as the minimum wage is to ensure that labor receives at least a just reward. I'm not a Marxist but what he put forth regarding labor and capital is correct, therefore labor should be entitled to a minimal return.

Wrong wrong and more wrong. What you are talking about is a race to the bottom. Maybe we should make people pay to work for companies instead of getting wages. Wait, they are called unpaid internships. Those poor tobacco picker jobs would have disappeared no matter what because a mechanical picker is always cheaper than hand picking. Do your homework. The number of people who actually get paid the minimum wages is tiny, because the real minimum wage in this country is far higher. Nowadays the jobs that are getting shipped off-shore are the HIGHER wage, high skill jobs, not the bottom of the barrel jobs that still require a high school education. From a business perspective using off-shore labor that gets paid 40% less than local labor is much more cost efficient if the labor is $60/hour, not $7.35/hour.

Why not just make them work for food, or perhaps bringing back the indentured servant. That too would be good for business, because let's face it that's the underlying theme of your post. What you're not mentioning is how important raising the minimum wage has been proven to raise not only individual income but boost the economy plus the ancillary benefit of reducing the number of individuals relying on entitlements such as SNAP and Medicaid -- which as a diehard right winger Mr. Jacoby, you should love. Additionally, since 1939, quite a bit more academic research has been done and proven that minimum wage has no adverse effect on employment, even during a harsh economic climate -- rendering your assertions fallacious. Between this post and your recent decleration that racism is no longer a significant impediment for African Americans, you're on quite a roll.

You should just include all your conservative, republican platitudes in one post. But I am looking forward to your next editorial -- "eliminating child labor laws".

Minimum wage is not and is not meant to be a job destroyer or creator. It was meant to allow people to survive. Instead as Mr. Jacoby points out it highlights that slave labor continues in this country. What business person with any modern conscience thinks a person can survive in a decent manner on $14,500 a year($7.25 an hour)? Sadly Mr. Jacoby turns his telescope to the wrong end and only sees a loss of cheap employees. If you can not sustain a business without giving people decent wages then that business should be out of business. The South already had the highest poverty rates even before minimum wage laws came into being. That's why the law was passed in the first place. Working people should not have to depend on charity and government assistance to sustain themselves. I thought this was what Republicans objected to. They are the ones truly exploiting government back up programs. If people were paid decently and if some of those high roller financial gamblers were more patriotic and invested properly in American workers rather than air maybe we would see things turn around.

The old cliche, "You, sir, are either a fool or a charlatan," couldn't be more apt. $5.50 an hour for a forty hour week (if you can get it) means a take home pay of about $175. A few tanks of gas or a bus pass, lunch, work clothes, rent and the old work house starts to look good. Even more likely you would get 20 hours and bring home $90. All while you employer rakes in billions off your labor. There is no need for this. Employers can still get rich, stocks will still pay dividends for no labor, and struggling Americans could still survive. And spare me the plea for "small" business. They are making plenty and squeezing every last dime out of their workers. Do any of these greedy apologists ever look in the mirror and think about the consequences of their greed? Lower wage earners are the only ones paying the price for this recovery. The proof is how fiercely everyone else wants to extend the tax cuts for the rich. They are not doing this because they think of themselves as workers.

Hey, bumpy. Perhaps you don't know it but the IRS already supplements minimum wages paid by employers with the Earned Income Tax Credit. The IRS provides welfare payments for the working poor.

But attaturk you haven't knocked down Jacoby's main argument, namely that *well intended* minimum wage laws probably raise the incomes of the less skilled workers who remain employed but also lead to a higher unemployment rate for the less skilled. As a matter of policy, we need to figure out how to raise the incomes of the working poor without causing more unemployment.

Sarcasm is not a convincing response to Jacoby's argument.

Did it ever occur to your that people need to be literate and have job skills before they can earn a "decent wage"? Many of our public schools fail to educate minority children who will eventually enter the job market. Raising the minimum wage does not raise the productivity level of unskilled people.

Referring to oneself in the third person is creepy.

Mandatory Health Care also plays a role in higher unemployment statistics.

Do people exist to assist markets, or do markets exist to assist people? When money and profits are treated with higher regard than people exploitation occurs. We have put the cart before the horse. When bankers work for free the rest of us should follow!

Why not raise the minimum wage to $50/hour? Then everybody could make $100,000 per year!

Brilliant comment. You have revealed the flaw in believing that you can force employers to pay high wages to unskilled labor without causing at least some of the less skilled to become jobless.

This is empty rhetoric. You haven't really replied to Jacoby's arguments.

No, it is a real question that is often assumes unquestioned premise about the nature of our social contract between government, industry and the population. If the affordable care act goes forward 43% of Louisiana's population will qualify for expanded Medicaid coverage. When I hear a number like that I do not accept that the health care law is the problem, rather I wonder what is wrong with a State and an economy that has so many people making so little money. Recently there has been a report on the rise of Black Lung among coal miners. Lax government regulation has allowed the mining industry to skirt regulations intended to protect workers. In the current debate it is accepted that regulations are job killers. Here is a case of a lack of regulation and it synonym, failure to enforce regulation,killing people. Is that the society we want? It is not the one I want.