How to hurt the poor.

ITEM: In its post-election coverage, the Washington Post for November 9 reported." "Democrats wasted no time yesterday proclaiming a new era in Washington, pledging to put middle-class economic issues at the top of their agenda." For example, continued the newspaper, "Analysts say that Democrats may find chastened Republicans receptive to some ideas, such as raising the minimum wage."

ITEM: CNN's Lou Dobbs, during his television show Lou Dobbs Tonight on November 8, scolded opponents of a minimum-wage increase by pointing to initiatives that passed in several states: "When the voters go to the trouble of an initiative ... and say business is just pushing way too hard against the interests, the common good (of) working men and women," that shows how important the issue is "to middle-class Americans."

CORRECTION: The Democrat leaders in the Congress vowed, if they took control of the legislative branch, immediately to introduce legislation to increase the mandatory federal minimum wage by 40 percent. Unfortunately, decades of propaganda have led many Americans to believe the government has a magic wand that can dispense benefits at little or no cost.

Nevertheless, lawmakers cannot make us all wealthier by decree. What legislators can do, however, is to fool some people into thinking that has happened. They raise the minimum wage, which may help some of those who get raises, but at the same time, they reduce the overall rate of employment, especially among less skilled and minority workers: this is what does happen when the mandatory minimum wage is increased. Yet, this is hardly promoting the common good.

The laws of supply and demand cannot be repealed any more than can the law of gravity. As economist Walter Williams of George Mason University puts it: "If higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwide poverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages."

If the government, whether state or federal, causes certain goods or services to cost more, businesses or consumers will buy fewer of those goods or services; that applies when government adds to the cost of labor as much as, say, when it piles on more taxes or regulations. Among the results will be that businesses will tend not to hire, or become more likely to fire, the least-productive members of the work force, or reduce the benefits of those who do keep their jobs at the new higher mandatory wage.

It is usually illuminating to ask the question, cui bono? Or, who benefits? In this case, the demand that the federal (or state) government should require an increase in the mandatory minimum wage is being pushed largely by organized labor and its left-wing allies. This should be no surprise since it is in their political interest to do so. They win by knocking off the lowest rungs of the employment ladder for the supposed beneficiaries, who don't comprehend what is happening.

Never mind the evidence that shows, for instance, that a 10 percent increase in the mandatory minimum wage increases unemployment among young people by 1 to 2 percent.

Mandating a minimum wage can do several things, but one of the things it can not do is guarantee there will actually be an available job. Is having no job when the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour truly better than actually having a job at $5.15 an hour? Keep in mind that few stay at the minimum for long; most such jobs are entry-level positions that allow workers to develop the skills needed to justify higher pay. And this is what generally happens: between 1998 and 2003, when the federal minimum-wage law remained unchanged, the median minimum-wage employee received a 10 percent raise within a year of starting his job; more than two-thirds of those starting at the minimum, according to an analysis by the Employment Policies Institute, were being paid more a year later. This happened because they were seen as being more productive, not because of a legislative ploy.

When the mandated minimum rate is above the true market rate, the least productive are bound to be hurt. It's that simple. Competitors know this, even if politicians purposely lie about it or are ignorant of the ramifications of their acts.

The AFL-CIO has been boasting about the success of its "America Needs a Raise" program--without, of course, explaining the wider consequences. In actuality, the unions are demanding a government tariff barrier to shelter their members from having to compete with lower-priced workers.

Hoover Institution economist David Henderson explains: "The main proponents of the minimum wage are labor union officials who use substantial resources to lobby and testify for higher minimum wages. But they have a self-interested motive: hobbling the competition. Almost all union members make well above the minimum wage, but by getting the minimum wage increased, they can reduce competition from less-skilled workers who would receive lower wages. Similarly, large employers who pay more than the minimum ... also push for higher minimum wages, presumably to make things more difficult for their low-wage competitors."

There is a considerable body of evidence about the negative effects of raising the minimum wage. Indeed, many of the proponents of raising it at the federal level are now resorting to the defense that the move won't have too much of an effect because it has already been jacked up by many of the states. This is damning an alleged boon with mighty faint praise. Nevertheless, if the additional mandate does pass at the federal level, there will be even more people who are hurt.

What about its impact on the largest private-sector employer in the United States, the restaurant industry? A spokesman for the National Restaurant Association has explained its opposition: "It is going to stunt the creation of new jobs, and business owners are going to have to make hard decisions." Because even some liberal congressmen must recognize this, look for craven lawmakers to try to appease the industry with some "tax breaks" that wouldn't be needed if the legislators didn't interfere with the market by increasing the cost of doing business.

Rea S. Hederman Jr. and James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation explain other drawbacks: "In addition to the many negative effects of raising the minimum wages--such as lower levels of employment, higher dropout rates for high school students, and a long-term reduction in wage--an increase in the minimum has been shown to reduce benefits in some states among those most in need."

No doubt. At that point, there will be a knock on the door from another government charlatan offering more help.