Adam Smith was a genius, and the foundation for much of the field of economics, but not an old-testament prophet or an oracle. His work has been built upon and surpassed by extensive research in the field today.

I mean, I'd be quite happy to trot out sources like Is there consensus among American labor economists? Survey results on forty propositions (Whaples, 1996) -- or another of the similarly titled papers in that series -- to illustrate there's a scientific consensus against the minimum wage, but worry that it's a mere two decades out of date. :P

I'm hesitant to say, this but...

Consensus amongst economists, is like saying consensus amongst weathermen. You need look no further than recent history. If the past 10 years (or longer if you please) have taught us anything, its that economists can be dangerously wrong. Especially if the issues are at all political.

Yeah, especially pop-economics and economists that the politicians trot out to promote their latest policies, or the guys trying to forecast the future of some part or another of the economy. And overall economic conditions change a bunch, all the time. Hence the aforementioned hesitance. Unfortunately good consensus surveys only come out every so often and then you have trouble looking them up if you aren't somewhere with JSTOR, so.

But, that said, economists in general have been pretty consistent on a few basic principles. Supply and demand, the impact of price controls thereupon, et cetera. And if you think through enough of that you might begin to think that the EITC is a better vehicle to help out the working poor than a minimum wage (since it doesn't cause unemployment or promote unnecessary investment in automation to further damage employment unnecessarily...) It's been known to happen, anyway.

My reasons for mentioning Smith:

1. He's almost always grossly misrepresented in modern discourse, and little of that gets beyond the virtually wholly fabricated "invisible hand" metaphor.[1] As this passage shows, and the entire section (from which I've both quoted from at length and greatly condensed in my previous links) makes abundantly clear, Smith isn't the cut-throat capitalist he's made out to be.

2. Yes, the field of economics has in fact "moved on" from Smith. Though I'd argue that in only some cases has it actually improved on him. Failing to understand Smith's own arguments is a principle failing of much of economics.

3. Smith argues his points at (great) length and with ample examples. There remain some errors (I find Graeber's argument for the origins of money as credit more persuasive, for example). But the whole chapter on wages of labour contains much of value even 239 years after its writing.

________________________________

Notes:

1. Gavin Kennedy's scholarship on this topic is excellent http://econjwatch.org/articles/adam-smith-and-the-invisible-...

It's also a frequent topic at his blog, "Adam Smith's Lost Legacy" http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2015/06/adam-smiths...

Much of the modern revival can be specifically pinned on Paul Samuelson, in whose landmark textbook it's prominently featured:

http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2010/04/paul-samuel...

http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2012/01/pay-attenti...

And, as a comment at the latter notes, the IH metaphor is explicitly called out as a description of an unknown mechansism:

[I]n The History of Astronomy (written before 1758) Smith speaks of the invisible hand,"to which ignorants refer to explain natural phenomena otherwise unexplainable:

"Fire burns, and water refreshes; heavy bodies descend, and lighter substances fly upwards, by the necessity of their own nature; nor was the invisible hand of Jupiter ever apprehended to be employed in those matters"

Smith, A., 1980, The Glasgow edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, 7 vol., Oxford University Press, vol. III, p. 49

2. For The How Damned Thing: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/...

Stripping that quote of all historical respect we have for Adam Smith, and answering head on: a guaranteed basic income seems like a much better way to reach these goals than to outlaw employment below a certain threshold of income.

I'm rather in favour if a government as employer of last resort. One option is to then resell that labour, at a loss in cases, to qualified businesses.

We're already subsidizing labour, but without consideration to net social benefit. That at least should change.

> One option is to then resell that labour, at a loss in cases, to qualified businesses.

Sounds like a recipe for corruption to me.