LOCAL and state minimum-wage increases are in style this season, with cities nationwide moving toward a $15-an-hour floor. But simply mandating that employers pay more is a clumsy and potentially counterproductive way to help the poor. Although some workers gain, others lose out on jobs altogether, while consumers — many poor themselves — face higher prices.

Still, if done right, increasing take-home pay for low-wage workers is the best way to tackle poverty: It responds to the challenging economic landscape facing unskilled workers by raising their incomes, while increasing the incentive for those outside the labor force to step onto the first rung of the economic ladder. And it does so without shoving the poor into government programs, instead integrating them into the economy and giving them resources to allocate on their own.

The often-cited alternative to an increased minimum wage, the earned-income tax credit, gets rave reviews from economists and politicians from both parties. The credit, paid to low-income households as a tax refund, increases as income initially grows, and then decreases as income goes above the poverty line.

On the blackboard, this approach appears ideal. Low-wage workers benefit from additional income, but employers do not face new costs that might drive them to reduce hiring or increase prices. To the contrary, the program functions as a subsidy from which employee and employer both benefit, expanding the labor force by producing an incentive to offer and accept low-wage work.