Noah Smith makes a point:

During good times, a rise in the minimum wage to, say, $15 may not be onerous -- it might represent only a small increase over what employers are already paying. […] But then a recession comes along. In response to lower demand for their products, companies will naturally want to cut wages temporarily. But the new $15 minimum may make it impossible for them to drop wages enough to keep all their workers employed. These companies will have only one alternative -- lay off workers.

Well, no. A $15 minimum wage will not make it impossible to drop wages enough to keep all their workers employed. Unless these are some very peculiar businesses indeed, fewer than 100% of their employees will be on minimum wage. A minimum wage just means that those already worst off don't bear the brunt of a recession. Hand-wringing about the plight of laid-off low-wage workers only serves to disguise the fact that payroll cost-cutting elsewhere is assumed to be off-limits.

If I correctly understand Smith's concerns about the affordabillity of minimum wages during recession, then surely we should be equally concerned about the absence of federally-mandated maximum wages under the same conditions. All right-thinking Americans should join Smith out in the streets waving placards demanding "$150 per hour - tops!". Otherwise companies will have only one alternative — lay off executives.