Well, shouldn't be surprising that the ubber Liberal/Progressive Secretary of Labor, Thomas Perez, would put his stamp of approval on such propaganda. Spend enough time reviewing their messaging campaign, and it's quite obvious the methodology is the same, no matter where it's presented.
Headlines, and claims, with very little meat. Exactly what the target audience has been trained to swallow.
"If 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have said no problemo to increases in minimum wage, deeeang it all, must be A-OK. Count me in".
Except, most economists have put a cap on those increases where big negatives kick in. Any discussion in Perez marketing piece about his good friends in the labor Unions pushing for $15/hr? Hmmm. Nothing. Just a big goober laden kiss on how awesome an increase in the minimum wage would be, and how any concerns are just myths.
First, MTAtech (a self-described liberal), provided a prior link for his "evidence" that said as much, the article quoted even MW supporter economists such as Reich (or Potter) said that at 15 dollars an hour, the assurances of "no worries" no longer longer apply. In other words, the 'libs' on this issue are even ignoring the experts on their own side.
Second, 600 economists on a letter for a modest increase (most of them not labor economists) is a pretty small sample - there are at least 15,000 (or more) US economists. However, depending on which poll you use, it should be mentioned that somewhere between a third to one half of economists support some kind of minimum wage, although fewer than the US population. But even they don't do so because they use 'economic reasoning' or are even familiar with labor market modeling (as my friend, a full-time non-labor economist, reminds me).
Third, letters like this represent political (not economic) choices - they reflect the political "feelings" and gut moralisms. The typical "justifications" of minimum wage by supporting economists are as banal and subjectively driven as that as that of a brick layer or truck driver (probably more so).
In Marginal Revolution there was a short article that underscored that reality. It described Dan Klein's survey work is the sociology of the economics profession which noted how little actual economic reasoning informs the MW opinions of those economists who favor minimum wages. Reading the simplistic and clichéd justifications of these Ph.D.'s made me cringe, as if after interviewing a representative sample of MD's, one discovers that in spite of their training, it believe that we ought to listen to Christian Scientists and ignore medical care.
Their non-economic 'reasoning' stand out as exceedingly cliched batch of political moralisms ...among them:
"regardless of its (bad) effect on efficiency, minimum wage is necessary to support the 'mores' of our society, just like our 'mores' don't permit child labor"
"it provides greater equality of income and respect, which is associated with better democracy - this is a near consensus in our society"
"it reduces poverty and inequality" (by the way, it does not).
"its just fair and society has the power to determine outcomes to make it fair"
"it provides economic justice"
"people should have pride, they should not feel like losers"
"without it our sense of community is undermined, which undermines social norms and the social behavior of those on the bottom".
"reducing wage inequality increases the quality of democratic institutions".
"less likely to become dependent on public programs, more incentive for work, more at stake in the system".
What struck me as interesting is that in spite of a graduate education is economics they don't "think" about political theory, philosophy, or normative/moral questions above the level of the usual 'liberal' clique.
The just "feel" what is right.
Sad...very sad.