(FORTUNE Magazine) – Whatever happens in the labor market as a result of the current debate over the minimum wage won't be a big deal, macroeconomically speaking. The issue--in case you've been avoiding the news media for the past month or two--is whether the minimum wage should be raised from its current level of $4.25 per hour to something like $5.15. Even the most bloodless conservatives (who note, correctly, that increasing the minimum wage eliminates low-paying jobs) have to admit that job losses from a 90-cent hike today would be small. Even the most bleeding-heart liberals (who point out that it's a direct way to help the poor) have to admit that many of the gains from higher minimum wages accrue not to the needy but to the relatively affluent teenagers who fry the fries of fast-food America.

Just for argument's sake, let's assume that the traditional teachings of economics are all wrong, and that the instincts of the liberals are right: that you could raise the minimum wage without destroying any jobs, and that doing so would make a material difference to the poor without wasteful side effects. Before you sign on in favor of boosting the minimum wage, there's still a question that's hardly ever asked but should be: Is it fair? Specifically, is it fair to stick the employers of minimum-wage workers with the bill?

To answer this question, you have to consider another: Why do employers pay some workers so little? The main reason--heartless though it may sound--is that that's all their work is worth. Please note that we're talking about the primary definition of the word "worth" ("material value, especially as expressed in terms of money") not the secondary one ("that quality of a person or thing that lends importance, value, merit, etc."). Failure to distinguish between the two has caused much of the general confusion about the minimum wage. Stick with definition No. 1, and there's no escaping the main reason for low wages: If low-paid workers were worth more, they could find someone to pay them more.

Sure, there are exceptions. You can have situations where a single employer--or a band of employers in cahoots--is able to hold down wages artificially. Such cases may arise in remote locations or because of other unusual circumstances, but that's not the way business is generally done in America. If you and I are in the same business, and I can outperform you by hiring away your best workers for slightly higher wages, I'll do it, whip you in the marketplace, and read about you in Chapter 11.

Once you accept the fact that some work is not worth the minimum wage, you can see the minimum-wage legislation for what it is: a not-so-well-focused public-welfare program. This leads up to our final question: Why should the costs of the minimum wage be borne by the employers of minimum-wage workers? They certainly aren't benefiting from hiring at the minimum wage, since they're paying more than the work they're getting in return is worth. Of course, they themselves don't pay that entire premium; part of it gets passed along to consumers as higher prices. In this respect, the minimum wage functions like the corporate income tax, and economists have never figured out how much of it is a tax on capital and how much is passed along. But to the extent the minimum-wage premium is shifted to consumers of the products of minimum-wage businesses, why should they be singled out? Wouldn't it be fairer for all taxpayers to share in providing the extra pay?

The inequity becomes clearer if you imagine handling other public problems in a similar way. Say that poor people are having trouble paying their heating bills in cold parts of the country. You could give them money or you could give them a tax credit. But the most distortive way to help them--and the one most like the minimum-wage approach--would be to enact "maximum utility-bill" legislation, forcing energy providers to swallow the cost of the subsidy.

The fundamental fairness problem inherent in the minimum-wage concept is one of the reasons that another program designed to help the working poor--the earned income tax credit--has always made more sense (the EITC is like a negative income tax, with poorer workers getting cash payments if their earnings fall under a specified floor). It's still a better approach.

REPORTER ASSOCIATE Lixandra Urresta