CST, Economics, and the Minimum Wage

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops supports an increase in the minimum wage, opining that:

Work has a special place in Catholic social thought: work is more than just a job; it is a reflection of our human dignity, and a way to contribute to the common good. Most important, it is the ordinary way people meet their material needs and community obligations. In Catholic teaching, the principle of a living wage is integral to our understanding of human work. Wages must be adequate for workers to provide for themselves and their families in dignity. Because the minimum wage is not a living wage, the Catholic bishops have supported increasing the minimum wage over the decades. The minimum wage needs to be raised to help restore its purchasing power, not just for the goods and services one can buy but for the self-esteem and self-worth it affords the worker. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops supports legislation that would increase the minimum wage and is urging Congress to raise the minimum wage in a timely and meaningful way.

Query to what extent the Bishops' support for increasing the minimum wage is based on prudential considerations rather than magisterial teaching? The Bishops' statement of support, for example, opines that:

An increase in the minimum wage will not increase joblessness: opponents of the minimum wage often argue that it increases unemployment for entry-level workers, thereby hurting the very people it is meant to help. Recent empirical studies failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with minimum wage increases. Studies of the 1996-97 and the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increases as well as studies of several state minimum wage increases have similar results.

In fact, as I've noted over on my personal blog, a substantial majority of economists still agree with the statement "Minimum wages increase unemployment among young and unskilled workers." The studies identified by the Bishops, moreover, are contradicted by the work of a number of labor economists (see, e.g., David Neumark). At the very least, it seems, the Bishops have "puffed" the data.

An interesting research question thus follows: Is the Bishops' position on the minimum wage dependent on the empirical data? Or would CST justify an increase in the minimum wage even if it was proven that an increase in the minimum wage modestly reduced employment for low-wage workers? If so, how?

Or suppose there's something else going on here. Econoblogger Tyler Cowen observes:

Gordon Tullock notes that the government can make an employer raise nominal money wages, but can't stop him from turning off the air conditioner. [A more optimistic scenario is that the employer invests in creating a higher-productivity job.] Surely just about every job out there can be made worse, one way or another, in a way that saves the employer money.

So the scenario is now simple. The government boosts the minimum wage. Low-wage workers earn more. Few lose their jobs. Workers sweat more too, one way or another. Few are much better off.

This would explain the empirical studies on which the Bishops seem to rely. Yet, if this interpretation of the data is correct, is it still fair to say that an increase in the minimum wage promotes human dignity?

My point is this: The empirical evidence on the minimum wage is highly contested. In their recent statement, the Bishops ignored that controversy in favor of citing studies on only one side. I call this disingenuous, at best (dishonest would be a better word). Instead of resting their argument on contested empirics, the Bishops should have either (1) admitted that this is a prudential matter on which Catholics can disagree or (2) found a nonconsequential justification for raising the minimum wage that Catholics would accept regardless of their view of the empirical data.