In Doug Henwood's important book Wall Street, which was written in 1997, you will find this important and relevant passage:

[T]he minimum wage [is] almost universally regarded by economists to be a job-killer. Their reasoning is pure Econ 101 — raise the price of something (and a wage is the price of labor), and you depress demand for it. Therefore, boosting the minimum wage has to result in an employment decline for low-end workers. But in surveys of employers taken just before and after changes in the minimum wage, David Card and Alan Krueger showed that this just isn’t true. They paused for a few pages in the middle of their book, Myth and Measurement, to review some reasons why the academic literature has almost unanimously found the minimum wage guilty as charged. They surmised that earlier studies showing that higher wages reduced employment were the result of “publication bias” among journal editors. They also surmised, very diplomatically, that economists have been aware of this bias, and played those notorious scholarly games, “specification searching and data mining” — bending the numbers to obtain the desired result. They also noted that some of the early studies were based on seriously flawed data, but since the results were desirable from both the political and professional points of view, they went undiscovered for several years.
The wage issue does not have an economic core but a political one. Indeed, the reason why members of the neoclassical school call themselves economists, which they are not, and are so keen to claim that issues like low wages are economic in nature is precisely because the world has forgotten the real or original name of the profession they usurped: political economy.