Sort of. Economists’ opinions about increasing the minimum wage are mixed. The celebration is about the data that we’ll eventually get on the change in employment. This will improves estimates of the elasticity of demand for low-skilled labor, which is the crucial variable for calculating how much unemployment increased minimum wages create.

Obviously the wage increases are good for those low-skilled workers who keep their jobs – a simple transfer from businesses to employees. Unfortunately those most likely to lose their jobs as wages increase will disproportionately include the least skilled and the most disadvantaged. Additionally, a part of the income gains will be lost to workers as their higher income reduces their eligibility for health-care subsidies and other income contingent programs such as Pell grants, the federal Earned Income Tax Credit, etc.

These are the reasons most economists prefer an increase in the EITC to an increase in the minimum wage. The EITC – first implemented by none other than Richard Nixon, with the support of Milton Friedman – is a negative income tax targeted at low-income workers with families. It doesn’t increase the wage that employers pay, instead it increases how much income workers get after taxes. So the EITC does not increase unemployment, and the money can be targeted at workers with families. A great program!

However, no one besides economists cares about the EITC. So the political choice is generally about leaving the minimum wage where it is or increasing it. My guess is that given this choice most economists think the number of lost jobs will be small enough, relative to the income gains for those who keep their jobs, to justify the increase.