Dear Editor:
There is a problem inherent in formulating opinion on economic policy while rejecting out of hand the counsel of business and economics professionals.
A doubling of the current tragically inadequate minimum wage would not only increase the buying power of said employees (thus boosting the economy), it would reduce their need to travel to two or three jobs every day in order to make ends meet (resulting in less child care expense and more quality time to spend with family); and it would dramatically reduce, if not eliminate, dependence on food stamps and food pantries, abuse of which is yet another way that corporations leech society in their upper limit-less quest for more profits.
A big step that is needed to make a living wage tenable is a reining in on the greed of CEO's, whose pay averages 373 times the pay of workers (Walmart's CEO rakes in 1,000 times the minimum wage at over $9,000/hour) and increases exponentially faster, besides being supplemented with bonuses and severance.
The Democratic Party platform supports fair wages by several mechanisms (a $15 minimum, good benefits, union representation, paid family leave, and more), while the Republican platform leaves workers to fend for themselves in state legislatures, which are destroying the ability of unions to protect the interests of labor. I say this not as a member of any political party, but as an independent voter: Hillary Clinton is by far the better presidential candidate for the people.
The answer to the question quoted by the editor "Why is government in the business of setting wage rates between consenting adults?" is this: One of the adults wields considerably more power than the other and is abusive. The free market values only money and not human beings and their quality of life.
A newspaper, because of its amplified voice, owes its readers a deeper, more sophisticated and nuanced analysis.