Democratic politics struggles between the competing desires to do justice and to promote a strong economy. Justice means boosting wages and enhancing worker satisfaction; a strong economy means increasing overall wealth and creating jobs. There is a tension between the two, one that policy makers usually do a pretty good job of balancing. But a recent vote by the Boston City Council steps well over the line. In passing the so-called Living Wage Ordinance, Boston now risks losing jobs and gaining back its reputation as a bad place in which to do business.

The Living Wage Ordinance has received little attention in the press, yet it is probably the single most important, and destructive, piece of economic legislation to pass the Council in the last decade. The ordinance effectively increases the minimum wage in Boston to $7.49 a hour (the federally-set minimum is $5.25). It is coupled with an onerous set of reporting requirements that force businesses to report wage and salary structures publicly. Almost all businesses regard that data as confidential, the release of which would put them at a competitive disadvantage.

When it was first introduced, many thought the new law would apply only to city employees and to contractors hired by the city. If so it would have been a good and non-controversial piece of legislation that allowed the city to take a leadership role in the cause for better wages.

But Boston's law goes much further, and covers any employers who — directly or indirectly — benefit from governmental subsidies. That's a lot of businesses. For example, most new developments in the city receive a property tax cut in their first few years of operation as an incentive for the developer to build. Similarly, any business starting up in an Enhanced Enterprise Zone — which includes virtually all of Roxbury and South Boston — is covered by the law. And the law covers not only the newly developed building, but any companies or even nonprofit organizations that lease space within it.

It should be self-evident that Boston puts itself at a disadvantage vis-a-vis other cities and towns when it imposes stringent new reporting and wage requirements on businesses within its jurisdiction. One wag has called the ordinance the "Quincy Redevelopment Act." Yet the Council, perhaps enraptured by the city's building boom, disagreed. One councilor had the hubris to assert that new burdens on Boston businesses wouldn't matter because Boston is now in such hot demand.

But economic booms don't last forever. Much of Boston's stunning growth can be traced to the extraordinary level of new federal funds flowing into the city to pay for the Big Dig. The sad truth is that businesses are already fleeing Boston for Routes 128 and 495. This legislation will only accelerate that flight.

The proponents of the ordinance concede that lower paying jobs probably will leave the city, but their attitude is, "Good riddance. Who wants them?"

The answer is that unskilled workers, or those just starting off in their working lives, need them. It is genuinely the case that skilled workers today are in short supply. Skilled jobs fetch wages well above the $7.49 level of the "living wage." Lawyers, software developers, financial managers and the like are doing very well. But unskilled workers face a very different situation. Jobs are hard to find, particularly unskilled jobs that provide training and a gateway to better paying careers. Jobs are the best social service program available. By sending them to the suburbs we are doing our neediest residents a disservice.

And it's not only jobs paying less than $7.49 that we'd be losing. Businesses have a range of jobs. Some are low paying, most pay better. When we lose those companies, we lose all of their jobs, not just the low-paying kind.

The pernicious effects of the ordinance go further, however. Within the city the law has the perverse effect of discouraging development in the parts of Boston that most need it.

Governmental subsidies are provided to developers as an incentive to develop in blighted parts of the city where development would not otherwise occur. That's what's happening in the recently announced Millennium project in downtown Boston or the Landmark Center at the old Sears building in the Fenway. Similarly, that's what we're trying to encourage when we create enterprise zones in the poorest parts of the city.

But the new ordinance doesn't apply to all businesses equally. A McDonald's in an enterprise zone is now subject to the reporting and wage requirements of the ordinance. One across the street, immediately outside of the zone, is not. If you owned that McDonald's, where would you locate?

It is for these reasons that the Boston Municipal Research Bureau begged the Council to conduct an economic impact analysis of the legislation. The Council refused. Literally a week after first being introduced, the ordinance passed with only a single dissenting vote.

If one could wave a magic wand and guarantee every worker a living wage, there's no question we would do it. If one could wave a magic wand and guarantee everyone a wage of at least $15, we wouldn't hesitate. If only it were that easy.

The plight of the unskilled and the underpaid is truly one of the hardest challenges we face in a capitalist society. The solutions are complex and expensive. They include intensive training for adults, aggressive and early education for the children of the disadvantaged, and one-on-one assistance to move unskilled workers from the margins of society to its center.

Those who argue that the solutions are easy are lying. Simple panaceas like the Living Wage Ordinance, which pretends to solve the problem with a still-inadequate wage of $7.49, will do little good and much harm. They will hurt not only those they wish to help, but also wound grievously Boston's efforts to save itself.