EDITORIAL : MINIMUM MADNESS EFFORT TO BOOST WAGES THROUGH INITIATIVE PROCESS IS HUGE ECONOMIC MISTAKE.

IT'S becoming more and more likely that the advocates of an initiative to raise the minimum wage in California will have enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot.

Whether the measure stands a chance of being passed is anyone's guess, but that it has any chance at all is disquieting news for the state's economy and also reflects the danger in using statewide initiatives to determine public and economic policy. All too often, initiatives turn into popularity contests, and let's face it, what can be more popular than a government-mandated pay raise?

The union-backed coalition pushing this initiative says it wants to raise the state's hourly minimum from $4.25 to $5.75 by March 1998. The current federal minimum remains at $4.25, despite recent efforts by the Clinton administration to raise it to $5.15 over the next two years.

Supporters of a minimum wage hike, both on the state and federal levels, have pleaded their case through misinformation and emotionalism. Reality, however, has a way of intruding on marketing.

First off, less than 2 percent of the nation's workers actually earn a minimum wage; everyone else either makes more or is not covered by the minimum. That's hardly the basis for having the government meddle with the marketplace, which is what a statewide initiative would do.

Secondly, most studies have found that a minimum wage increase results in some job loss. A federal commission determined that for every 10 percent hike in the minimum, teen employment would be cut by between 1 percent and 3 percent. The teen-age sector is most relevant because they're the ones who often wind up with the $4.25 jobs.

This isn't rocket science, just common sense. When wage rates go up for low-wage jobs, there will be some effort to cut personnel. And it's the entry-level employees who receive the bad news.

Thirdly, there's considerable disagreement over whether an increase in the minimum wage is actually an effective way of helping the poor, since so many of those earning the $4.25-an-hour wage come from middle-income homes.

Even supporters of the measure concede that it would take a $6.24-an-hour wage to keep a family of three above the poverty level - half a buck higher than what even they are proposing.

But even if an argument can be made for raising the minimum - and we remain skeptical whether it can - the idea of California unilaterally upping its wage is an economic accident waiting to happen. If there is one lesson to be learned from the last, protracted recession, it's that California always will be vulnerable to lower-wage states. Increasing the state minimum would be an open invitation for further pillage.

Once again, the unwieldy initiative process is taking the place of judgments better left to legislatures in Sacramento and Washington. And once again, the state stands to be much the poorer for it.