Minimum wage laws are inherently self-defeating and should be eliminated immediately

"If by "hard science," you mean to say that economics is not a natural science, then, by all means, you are absolutely correct."......"But economics is just as sound as physics or any other natural science, and the economist's logic is just as valid as the physicist's differential equations—in fact, they are one and the same. This is also why we must approach economic matters from mainly a logical perspective." I mean to say that economics is a social science, similar to psychology and political science. I agree that an economic theory is just as sound as perhaps evolutionary theory, but unlike evolution, there are many different theories (schools of thought) currently in competition; Keynesian, Austrian, Neo-Classical theory, etc. These theories wield vastly different predictions, some going as far as the origination of the business cycle. Such a lack of consensus exhibits that some of these assumptions (ceteris paribus) must be faulty. This must be taken into account to logically determine whether the minimum wage is inherently self-defeating. "The vast majority of society is productive enough to earn wages that far surpass this arbitrary price floor, and those who are not productive enough to earn the minimum wage are simply not hired." This depends on whether the firm can still profit from paying a higher wage. Our economy does not reflect a perfectly competitive model at all, which is why employment is not as sensitive to a price floor as it may seem. An employer can often divert resources from other avenues within their firm, such as executive pay or other administrative costs that are not vital to production or profit, which ends up in the hands of those receiving the minimum wage. Because of the given demand for labor to reach higher marginal utility, firms will not always lay off workers receiving wages higher than the the market equilibrium (remember that perfect competition and elasticity doesn't exist, so this is very feasible and logically plausible). "Thus, the minimum wage law will have no affect on the employment rate if it is set below the productivity of labor, that is, if it is set below the wage rate society already earns. If the minimum wage rate, on the other hand, is set above the productivity of labor (either for the entire economy, or for a specific group), then it must necessarily elevate the unemployment rate. Simply put: if the minimum wage rate has any effect at all, it must be a negative one." This is only true in a world where perfect competition exists. Contrarily, our world contains a combination of monopolistic and oligopolistic competition. Since there are indeed excesses and waste within a non-perfectly competitive firm, a set minimum wage will not immediately drive up unemployment. Instead, the firm will have to balance the costs of lost labor utility against the costs of a higher wage being mandated. If the worker in question provides the necessary productivity, he/she will not be laid off; instead, other costs will be cut. Often, this is certainly the case since the various minimum wages in the US do not show any direct affects, whatsoever. This illustrates the minimum wage as beneficially effective. "First, the minimum wage law contributes to the stickiness of wages. Second, it is true that labor suffers from diminishing marginal returns (like all economic goods), but this does not mean that wages are in perpetual free fall." If the current minimum wage is removed, real wages will not fall perpetually, but they will fall for approximately 2-3 million people. This is unlikely to lead to full employment, but rather a weaker purchasing power due to factors associated with marginal utility, among imperfect competition and elasticity. This wouldn't be beneficial. "So we agree that the market, through competition, bids up wage rates towards the marginal product of labor. Okay, good. Your argument, then, seems to be that without this government price floor, wages would fall to unacceptably low levels. But what you're saying, then, is that the vast majority of individuals are not productive enough to earn $7.25/hour (the current minimum wage rate), or, in other words, that the price of labor exceeds its productivity. I argue that if this were true, then (a) profit-maximizing employers would have never employed them in the first place, and (b) we would have a condition of perpetual economic stagnation and high unemployment (like the social Democratic European states—that have unbelievably high natural rates of unemployment)." Market wages are indeed unacceptably low, for they are not sufficient for a considerable portion of the population to survive with. When arguing economics, it is only reasonable to apply practical application and conclude how and why theoretical outcomes affect real world circumstances. Additionally, perpetual economic stagnation and high structural unemployment does not happen unless referenced under a perfectly competitive model. Otherwise, structural unemployment will go largely unaffected, while economic stagnation will be contrasted by actual growth instead, for a higher disposable income among those who need to spend more to comfortably live will initiate rises in consumption (demand), thus investment and production, which results in expansion and growth. "Nations like India, China, and Zambia could become first-world developed nations over night with a comparable purchasing power to that of the U.S—they merely need to elevate their minimum wage! Unfortunately, wage rates are not determined by political fantasies and decree but rather by market forces and the marginal productivity of labor." A modest rise in the minimum wage only slightly benefits growth as an after-effect of increased purchasing power, via wealth redistribution. When I can spend money that my rich executive employer was saving, the economy will increase production to meet the demand. If, instead, my employer keeps his money, I will have to go into debt to get by, and the economy will not expand based on the lack of a rise in demand. In fact, growth may very well stagnate. == Conclusion == The minimum wage is designed to raise the wages of the most vulnerable members within the US economy. By doing this, the US government is effectively ensuring that its citizens will not have to endure peasant-like living conditions. No, instead these laborers will have the increased purchasing power to live a comfortable lifestyle, along with being a more effective contributor to society with their increased disposable income. Despite conventional wisdom, these laborers' higher earnings will not steal job opportunities from others because businesses require a fairly specific amount of workers imperative to cheap and efficient production. Instead, these businesses will choose to cut administrative costs or executive pay to meet these minimum wage requirements, the excesses of which, lands in the hands of the impoverished and disadvantaged. This does little more than to arm US citizens with the opportunity to live in the absence of abject poverty. The minimum wage is certainly not inherently self-defeating for those who receive it; not in any sense, whatsoever.