Embed
Email

The Minimum Wage

Document Sample
The Minimum Wage
Shared by: HC11111722940
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
7
posted:
11/17/2011
language:
English
pages:
25
The Minimum Wage

• Historical change in the minimum wage

– Nominal federal minimum wage changes only by act of Congress,

remains the same the rest of the time



Years Nominal federal minimum wage

1980 $3.10

1981-89 $3.35

1990 $3.80

1991-1995 $4.25

1996 $4.75

1997-date $5.15

Source: BLS

The Minimum Wage

• Historical change in the minimum wage

– Nominal minimum wage not changed to account for inflation

– Real federal minimum wage decreases as price increases when

nominal minimum wage remains the same



Year Nom. federal CPI (base yr. Real federal minimum (1982-84 $)

minimum 1982-84) = Nom. minimum x 100 / CPI

1997 $5.15 160.5 $3.21

1998 $5.15 163.0 $3.16

1999 $5.15 166.6 $3.09

2000 $5.15 172.2 $2.99

Source: BLS

The Minimum Wage

• Time series of

nominal & real

federal min.

wages different

• Nominal min.

wage highest at

present

• Real minimum

wage highest in

1968 (almost

$8 in hour in

2000 dollars!)

The Minimum Wage

• State minimum wages Minimum States

– States can have $5.65 Alaska

minimum wages higher

$5.75 Hawaii, Maine

than the federal

minimum wage if they $6.15 Rhode Island, Delaware

wish; 11 states currently $6.25 Vermont

have minimum wages $6.50 Oregon

above federal minimum

$6.70 Connecticut

– All but Delaware in

New England or on $6.75 California, Massachusetts

Pacific coast $6.90 Washington

Source: BLS

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• New Jersey Minimum Wage Increase

– April 1, 1992: New Jersey raises its minimum wage from the

federal minimum of $4.25/hr. to $5.05/hr.

– David Card and Alan Krueger (both Princeton) surveyed 321 fast-

food restaurants in New Jersey and 78 in eastern Pennsylvania,

once in Feb.-March 1992 and again in Nov.-Dec. 1992

– New Jersey-only minimum wage increase is ―natural experiment‖:

New Jersey, in which the minimum wage increased, is the

―experimental‖ group; eastern Pennsylvania, in which the

minimum wage remains the same, is the ―control‖ group

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Card and Krueger‘s findings

– Starting fast-food wages in New Jersey and Pennsylvania suggest

that the minimum wage increase was binding in New Jersey and

would have been binding in Pennsylvania:



Minimum wage Avg. starting fast-food wage

Feb-Mar Nov-Dec Feb-Mar Nov-Dec Change

State 1992 1992 1992 1992

N.J. $4.25 $5.05 $4.61 $5.08 +$0.47

Penn. $4.25 $4.25 $4.63 $4.62 -$0.01

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Card and Krueger‘s findings

– CK, using data from their surveys, found that, despite the

minimum wage increase, average fast-food employment increased

in New Jersey relative to fast-food employment in Pennsylvania:



Minimum wage Avg. FTE fast-food employment

per restaurant

Feb-Mar Nov-Dec Feb-Mar Nov-Dec Change

State 1992 1992 1992 1992

N.J. $4.25 $5.05 20.4 21.0 +0.6

Penn. $4.25 $4.25 23.3 21.2 -2.1

*FTE = full time equivalent

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Card and Krueger‘s findings

– Card and Krueger found another ―natural experiment‖ out of the

New Jersey minimum wage increase

– Some 73 New Jersey fast-food restaurants in the CK survey paid

its starting workers an hourly wage greater than $5

– The new $5.05 minimum wage would not bind for most of these

73 restaurants, making them another ―control‖ group of restaurants

unaffected by the minimum wage increase

– The other 241 restaurants paid its starting workers less than $5 an

hour and would be affected by the new minimum wage, making

them the ―experimental‖ group affected by the minimum wage

increase

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Card and Krueger‘s findings

– But CK‘s survey data showed that average employment increased

in the restaurants affected by the minimum wage hike relative to

employment in restaurants unaffected by the minimum wage hike:



Avg. FTE fast-food

employment per restaurant

Feb-Mar Nov-Dec Change

Restaurant type 1992 1992

NJ restaurants that start at $5/hr 23.3 21.2 -2.1

*FTE = full time equivalent

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Card and Krueger‘s findings

– Card and Krueger summarized:

―…our empirical findings on the effects of the New Jersey

minimum wage are inconsistent with the predictions of a

conventional competitive model…‖

―Contrary to the central prediction of the textbook model of the

minimum wage..we find no evidence that the rise in New

Jersey‘s minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food

restaurants in the state.‖

- D. Card and A. Krueger, ―Minimum Wages and Employment:

A Case Study of the Fast Food Industry in New Jersey and

Pennsylvania, American Economic Review 84:4 (Sept. 1994)

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Response to Card and Krueger

– CK‘s work, which contradicted 100+ years of economic theory,

was controversial, exciting and elicited much response

– Ronald Ehrenberg (Cornell):

―If the authors‘ analyses are correct, they have, perhaps

unintentionally, presented a devastating critique both of

economic theory and of empirical research methods in

economics. Taken at face value, their findings suggest that

simple competitive demand and supply models do not provide

an adequate description of low-wage labor markets…‖

- R. Ehrenberg, Ind. and Labor Relations Rev. 48:4 (July 1995)

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Response to Card and Krueger

– Other authors were more skeptical.

– Daniel Hamermesh (U. of Texas):

―The authors challenge economic notions that make logical sense

with new evidence; but they never offer a convincing

theoretical explanation for why the old logic fails. Lacking

that, readers should examine their evidence very carefully.

That examination yields the inescapable conclusion that, even

on its own grounds, [Card and Krueger‘s] strongest evidence is

fatally flawed.‖

- D. Hamermesh, ILRR 48:4 (July 1995)

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Response to Card and Krueger

– Why the ruckus? Econ papers are like lab reports. When you get a

result that contradicts a basic theory, you figure your method of

testing the theory is wrong, not that the theory itself is wrong. But

CK argued that the theory, not their methods, were wrong.

– Paul Osterman (MIT):

―Although they are too polite to say so, in effect they charge that

some investigators have pushed the limits of acceptable

practice to produce results consistent with theory…this book

raises some very sharp questions about the practice of labor

economics.‖

- P. Osterman, ILRR 48:4 (July 1995)

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Neumark and Wascher

– David Neumark (Michigan State) and William Wascher (Fed

Reserve Board) noted some unusual observations in CK‘s data:

―…there are some extremely large employment changes in [Card

and Krueger‘s] data. The largest employment decline is 41.5

FTE‘s, the largest increase is 34 FTE‘s, and the standard

deviation of employment change is 8.4 in New Jersey and 10.8

in Pennsylvania. Given that the mean level of employment

was 21.1 in the first survey and 21.3 in the second, the

variability in [Card and Krueger‘s] data is surprising…‖

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Neumark and Wascher

– NW suspected that the problem was with CK‘s survey techniques:

―[Card and Krueger‘s] interviewer first verified that they were

speaking with a manager…They then asked ‗How many full-

time and part-time workers are employed in your restaurant,

excluding managers…?‘ Survey respondents were not given

any time period over which to define employment, and their

answers may well have ranged from employment on the shift

during which the telephone survey took place to employment

over an entire payroll period. Moreover, because different

managers may have been interviewed in the first two waves of

the survey, there is no reason to believe that the responses in

the first and second waves are based on the same ‗definition‘

of employment…‖

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Neumark and Wascher

– NW, with help from the Employment Policies Institute (EPI),

acquired payroll data from 230 fast-food restaurants in select zip

codes in which Card and Krueger surveyed:

―…the payroll data provide total hours worked for a well-defined

period…on a consistent basis for the two survey periods, and

should therefore be more reliable…‖

―The standard deviation of employment change is 9.6 in [Card

and Krueger‘s] data, versus 3.2 in the payroll data.‖

D. Neumark and W. Wascher, ―The Effect of New Jersey‘s

Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-Food Employment: A Re-

Evaluation Using Payroll Records, NBER WP5224, Aug. 1995

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Neumark and Wascher‘s findings

– NW‘s payroll data showed that average employment decreased in

New Jersey fast-food restaurants relative to Pennsylvania

restaurants after the New Jersey minimum wage increase



Minimum wage Avg. change in fast-food

employment per restaurant

Feb-Mar Nov-Dec Card/Krueger Neumark/Wascher

State 1992 1992 survey data payroll datda

N.J. $4.25 $5.05 +0.8 +0.1

Penn. $4.25 $4.25 -3.0 +1.0

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Neumark and Wascher‘s findings

– Neumark and Wascher concluded:

―In contrast to [Card and Krueger‘s] claim, the payroll data from

the New Jersey-Pennsylvania minimum wage experiment are

consistent with the prediction of the standard competitive

model that minimum wage increases reduce employment of

low-wage workers.‖

D. Neumark and W. Wascher, ―The Effect of New Jersey‘s

Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-Food Employment: A Re-

Evaluation Using Payroll Records, NBER Working Paper

#5224, Aug. 1995

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Neumark and Wascher‘s findings

– Some of the payroll data was collected by NW themselves, while

some was collected by the Employment Policies Institute, a

conservative thinktank that NW admit ―has a stake in the outcome

of the debate.‖ Might this have affected NW‘s results?



Minimum wage Avg. change in fast-food

employment per restaurant

Feb-Mar Nov-Dec Data collected Data collected by

State 1992 1992 by NW EPI

N.J. $4.25 $5.05 -1.0 +2.1

Penn. $4.25 $4.25 -1.0 +3.0

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Neumark and Wascher‘s findings

– Neumark and Wascher discuss the EPI problem:

―…this comparison..might be read as consistent with the EPI

having somehow selected a set of observations in which the

results were most discordant with [CK‘s] results.‖

―Even in the data we collected, however, the standard deviation is

well below that in [CK‘s] data, and the point estimates of the

minimum wage effect are negative.‖

―…because we supplemented the EPI data by attempting to

collect data on the remainder of franchisees…only the full

sample is representative of the universe of fast-food

restaurants…Thus, the proper response…[is] to base the

analysis on the full payroll sample—including those

observations collected by the EPI.‖

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Neumark and Wascher‘s findings

– And stick by their results:

―[Card and Krueger] stated that they found ‗no evidence that the

rise in New Jersey‘s minimum wage reduced employment at

fast food restaurants in the state,‘ that ‗the increase in the

minimum wage increased employment,‘ and that their findings

‗are difficult to explain with the standard competitive model.‘

We regard the payroll data as most consistent with the three

opposite conclusions.‖

D. Neumark and W. Wascher, ―Minimum Wages and

Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New

Jersey and Pennsylvania: Comment,‖ American Economic

Review 90:5 (December 2000)

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Card and Krueger strike back

– Card and Krueger acquired payroll data about fast-food restaurants

in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics‘ ES-202 database, which consists of employment records

reported quarterly by employers to their state employment security

agencies for unemployment insurance tax purposes.

―…because the ES-202 data include information for every

covered employer, there is no reason to doubt the

representativeness of the BLS sample

D. Card and A. Krueger, ―Minimum Wages and Employment: A

Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and

Pennsylvania: A Reply,‖ American Economic Review 90:5

(December 2000)

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Card and Krueger strike back

– Card and Krueger‘s ―representative‖ payroll data supports their

original conclusion: that the New Jersey minimum wage hike

increased employment in New Jersey relative to Pennsylvania.



Minimum wage Average fast-food employment

per restaurant

Feb-Mar Nov-Dec Feb-Mar Nov-Dec Change

State 1992 1992 1992 1992

N.J. $4.25 $5.05 37.2 37.6 +0.4

Penn. $4.25 $4.25 42.5 42.4 -0.1

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Card and Krueger strike back

– …but the relative increase in employment in New Jersey shown in

Card and Krueger‘s payroll data is less than in their survey data,

and actually slightly closer to Newmark and Wascher‘s results.



Minimum wage Avg. change in fast-food

employment per restaurant

State Feb-Mar Nov-Dec Card/Krueger Card/Krueger Neumark/Wascher

1992 1992 survey data payroll data payroll data

N.J. $4.25 $5.05 +0.2 +0.4 +0.1

Penn. $4.25 $4.25 -2.2 -0.1 +1.0

Difference $0.00 +$0.80 +2.4 +0.5 -0.9

‘90s Minimum Wage Research

• Card and Krueger strike back

– Card and Krueger conclude:

―Based on all the evidence now available, including the BLS ES-

202 sample, we conclude that the increase in the New Jersey

minimum wage in April 1992 had little or no systematic effect

on total fast-food employment in that state, although there may

have been individual restaurants where employment rose or fell

in response to the higher minimum wage.‖

D. Card and A. Krueger, ―Minimum Wages and Employment: A

Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and

Pennsylvania: A Reply,‖ American Economic Review 90:5

(December 2000)


Related docs
Other docs by HC11111722940
By LEA-FY-Program
Views: 3  |  Downloads: 0
UNITED
Views: 11  |  Downloads: 0
????1
Views: 28  |  Downloads: 0
Slide 1
Views: 1  |  Downloads: 0
Explanation
Views: 3  |  Downloads: 0
Cat News Index
Views: 3  |  Downloads: 0
Formule 1
Views: 132  |  Downloads: 0
CBPA Dean's Research Seminar Series
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
A h�tt�rhatalom strat�gi�ja
Views: 1  |  Downloads: 0
By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!