神话还是测量:关于美国的最低工资和失业,新的最低工资研究说明了什么?

IF 2.4 3区 管理学 Q2 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Industrial Relations Pub Date : 2022-04-25 DOI:10.1111/irel.12306
David Neumark, Peter Shirley
{"title":"神话还是测量:关于美国的最低工资和失业,新的最低工资研究说明了什么?","authors":"David Neumark,&nbsp;Peter Shirley","doi":"10.1111/irel.12306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The disagreement among studies on the employment effects of minimum wages in the United States is well known. Less well known, and more puzzling, is the absence of agreement on what the research literature says—that is, how economists summarize the body of evidence on the employment effects of minimum wages. Summaries range from “it is now well established that higher minimum wages do not reduce employment,” to “the evidence is very mixed with effects centered on zero so there is no basis for a strong conclusion one way or the other,” to “most evidence points to adverse employment effects.” We explore the question of what conclusions can be drawn from the literature, focusing on the evidence using subnational minimum wage variation within the United States that has dominated the research landscape since the early 1990s. To accomplish this, we assembled the entire set of published studies in this literature and identified the core estimates that support the conclusions from each study, in most cases relying on responses from the researchers who wrote these papers. Our key conclusions are as follows: (i) there is a clear preponderance of negative estimates in the literature; (ii) this evidence is stronger for teens and young adults and the less educated; (iii) the evidence from studies of directly affected workers points even more strongly to negative employment effects; and (iv) the evidence from studies of low-wage industries is less one-sided.</p>","PeriodicalId":47700,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Myth or measurement: What does the new minimum wage research say about minimum wages and job loss in the United States?\",\"authors\":\"David Neumark,&nbsp;Peter Shirley\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/irel.12306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The disagreement among studies on the employment effects of minimum wages in the United States is well known. Less well known, and more puzzling, is the absence of agreement on what the research literature says—that is, how economists summarize the body of evidence on the employment effects of minimum wages. Summaries range from “it is now well established that higher minimum wages do not reduce employment,” to “the evidence is very mixed with effects centered on zero so there is no basis for a strong conclusion one way or the other,” to “most evidence points to adverse employment effects.” We explore the question of what conclusions can be drawn from the literature, focusing on the evidence using subnational minimum wage variation within the United States that has dominated the research landscape since the early 1990s. To accomplish this, we assembled the entire set of published studies in this literature and identified the core estimates that support the conclusions from each study, in most cases relying on responses from the researchers who wrote these papers. Our key conclusions are as follows: (i) there is a clear preponderance of negative estimates in the literature; (ii) this evidence is stronger for teens and young adults and the less educated; (iii) the evidence from studies of directly affected workers points even more strongly to negative employment effects; and (iv) the evidence from studies of low-wage industries is less one-sided.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Industrial Relations\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Industrial Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/irel.12306\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/irel.12306","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于美国最低工资对就业影响的研究存在分歧,这是众所周知的。不太为人所知,也更令人困惑的是,人们对研究文献的说法缺乏共识——也就是说,经济学家如何总结有关最低工资对就业影响的大量证据。总结的范围从“现在已经确定,提高最低工资不会减少就业”,到“证据非常复杂,影响以零为中心,因此没有强有力结论的基础”,再到“大多数证据指向不利的就业影响”。我们探讨了可以从文献中得出什么结论的问题,重点关注自20世纪90年代初以来一直主导研究领域的美国次国家最低工资变化的证据。为了做到这一点,我们收集了该文献中发表的全部研究,并确定了支持每项研究结论的核心估计,在大多数情况下,这些估计依赖于撰写这些论文的研究人员的回答。我们的主要结论如下:(i)在文献中存在明显的负面估计优势;(ii)这一证据在青少年和年轻人以及受教育程度较低的人群中更为明显;(iii)直接受影响工人的研究证据更强烈地指出了负面的就业影响;(四)低工资行业研究的证据不那么一边倒。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Myth or measurement: What does the new minimum wage research say about minimum wages and job loss in the United States?

The disagreement among studies on the employment effects of minimum wages in the United States is well known. Less well known, and more puzzling, is the absence of agreement on what the research literature says—that is, how economists summarize the body of evidence on the employment effects of minimum wages. Summaries range from “it is now well established that higher minimum wages do not reduce employment,” to “the evidence is very mixed with effects centered on zero so there is no basis for a strong conclusion one way or the other,” to “most evidence points to adverse employment effects.” We explore the question of what conclusions can be drawn from the literature, focusing on the evidence using subnational minimum wage variation within the United States that has dominated the research landscape since the early 1990s. To accomplish this, we assembled the entire set of published studies in this literature and identified the core estimates that support the conclusions from each study, in most cases relying on responses from the researchers who wrote these papers. Our key conclusions are as follows: (i) there is a clear preponderance of negative estimates in the literature; (ii) this evidence is stronger for teens and young adults and the less educated; (iii) the evidence from studies of directly affected workers points even more strongly to negative employment effects; and (iv) the evidence from studies of low-wage industries is less one-sided.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Industrial Relations
Industrial Relations INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.70%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Corporate restructuring and downsizing, the changing employment relationship in union and nonunion settings, high performance work systems, the demographics of the workplace, and the impact of globalization on national labor markets - these are just some of the major issues covered in Industrial Relations. The journal offers an invaluable international perspective on economic, sociological, psychological, political, historical, and legal developments in labor and employment. It is the only journal in its field with this multidisciplinary focus on the implications of change for business, government and workers.
期刊最新文献
Dismissal protection and long‐term sickness absence: Evidence from a policy change Issue Information Listed founding family firms and labor cost stickiness# It's not great, but it could be worse! Immigrant job quality in Canada through the lens of relative deprivation theory The impact of involuntary job displacement on participation in gig work: A causal analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1