But what is the rationale behind suggesting in minimum wage? It's not 'more pay'... it's something like reducing poverty, 'fairness', a moral belief that people should not suffer, etc.
The answer "Laws requiring employers to pay [higher wages, better pensions, healthcare coverage] increases unemployment because regulation has negative unintended consequences" a) is useless to policy makers and b) is a dismissal of the original moral position. It is thus a moral stance in itself. It says "I value freedom of the market more than I value your goals." I don't know if most economists have been manipulated into this role or are willing contributors, but the result is that they are being taken less seriously by society.
Economists are currently in the role of saying that the rising tide of a free market will eventually lift all boats, don't be distracted by the losers... but we seem to be reaching the limits of the effectiveness of this strategy and society seems to be uncomfortable with the casualties.
The question that generally needs answering is: "How can I reduce the negative consequences of free markets and what is the most effective way to compensate the losers?"
Not that I necessarily agree with that position, but saying that minimum wage raises unemployment isn't (necessarily) being dismissive of the moral issues behind minimum wage. It's just saying "it won't work out the way you want".
Stronger: It can be saying "I share your morals, that unemployment is harmful, therefore I oppose your solution, because your solution will do more harm than good (as defined by the morals that we both share)."
The answer "Laws requiring employers to pay [higher wages, better pensions, healthcare coverage] increases unemployment because regulation has negative unintended consequences" a) is useless to policy makers and b) is a dismissal of the original moral position. It is thus a moral stance in itself. It says "I value freedom of the market more than I value your goals." I don't know if most economists have been manipulated into this role or are willing contributors, but the result is that they are being taken less seriously by society.
Economists are currently in the role of saying that the rising tide of a free market will eventually lift all boats, don't be distracted by the losers... but we seem to be reaching the limits of the effectiveness of this strategy and society seems to be uncomfortable with the casualties.
The question that generally needs answering is: "How can I reduce the negative consequences of free markets and what is the most effective way to compensate the losers?"