"following the minimum-wage increase in 1996-1997, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades ... "

yea, but the two events were not in any way related.

Personally, I say abolish the Min Wage .. in harmony with other fundamental changes in the economic structures - would better help alleviate poverty and strengthen America.

"low-income workers are typical minimum-wage earners" Musta taken a few dozen PhDs with a 5 million govt. grant to figure that one out.

Min. wage is just that, a MINIMUM wage. The concept is to develop marketable skills that will increase one's wage. The market generally exceeds the min wage anyway, I believe Wal-Mart will start you around the $6-$7 range.

"yet, many just received their first raise in almost nine years with the recent increase in the minimum wage"

You mean to tell me there are people who started at $5.15/hr 9 years ago and are STILL making $5.15/hr today? If someone is that stupid to keep the same job making the same wage for 9 years then they deserve min wage.

I noticed no mention of teenagers working part time jobs Melissa. Did you conveniently leave that out? The only time I ever made min wage was starting at McDonalds at 16 years of age and I was given a raise within a month.

Just another plea for the govt. to force employers to take care of us all.

JDR, you are right, the economy was booming in the late 90's and employers were having a difficult time finding labor. Supply and demand: labor is short then wages go up. Wages go up and family income increases. It's the economy stupid.

JDR is right on the money (oh my God that hurt).
Minimum wage goes up, business increases price of goods to cover the increase, cost of living goes up, call goes out for an increase in minimum wage.
Stop this vicious cycle. Let the market determine the cost of employment. Competition for jobs will improve the economy.

Things that make ya go hmmmm:

"Women, minorities and low-income workers are typical minimum-wage earners. These workers often contribute to more than half of their family's weekly earnings; ...."

I'm pretty certain the "low-income workers are typical minimum-wage earners" part is right on target anyway. But the next clause is quite interesting. If the minimum wage earner contributes more than half of the family's earnings, one must conclude that:

The rest of the family doesn't earn at all, in which case the MWE is contributing 100% of the earnings ... so why not just say it that way ....

Or the rest of the family is earning SUB-MINIMUM wages. In that case, perhaps we should be more concerned about them than we are about the relatively highly compensated MWE. Yes/No?

Wonder what minimum wage increases do the value the dollar in exchange rate scenarios?