Once upon a time there was a near consensus among economists that raising the minimum wage was a bad idea. The market is really good at setting prices on things, whether it is apples or labor. If you raise the price on a worker, employers will hire fewer and you'll end up hurting the people you meant to help.
Then, in 1993, economists David Card and Alan Krueger looked at fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and found that raising the minimum wage gave people more income without hurting employment. A series of studies in Britain buttressed these findings.
Today, raising the minimum wage is the central piece of the progressive economic agenda. President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton champion it. Cities and states across the country have been moving to raise minimum wages to as high as $15 an hour – including New York state just this week.
Some of my Democratic friends are arguing that forcing businesses to raise their minimum wage will not only help low-wage workers; it will actually boost profits, because companies will better retain workers. Some economists have reported that there is no longer any evidence that raising wages will cost jobs.
Never miss a local story.
Unfortunately, that last claim is inaccurate. Many studies are on each side of the issue. David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve have done their own studies and point to dozens of others showing major job losses.
Recently, Michael Wither and Jeffrey Clemens of the University of California, San Diego, looked at data from the 2007 federal minimum-wage hike and found that it reduced the national employment-to-population ratio by 0.7 percentage points (which is actually a lot), and led to a 6-percentage-point decrease in the likelihood that a low-wage worker would have a job.
Because low-wage workers get less work experience under a higher minimum-wage regime, they are less likely to transition to higher-wage jobs down the road. Wither and Clemens found that two years later, workers’ chances of making $1,500 a month was reduced by 5 percentage points.
Many economists have pointed out that as a poverty-fighting measure the minimum wage is horribly targeted. A 2010 study by Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser found that only 11.3 percent of workers who would benefit from raising the wage to $9.50 an hour would come from poor households. An earlier study by Sabia found that single mothers’ employment dropped 6 percent for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage.
A study by Thomas MaCurdy of Stanford built on the fact that as many people in high-income families make the minimum wage (teens) as in low-income families. MaCurdy found the costs of raising the wage are passed on to consumers as higher prices. Because low-wage workers often work at places that disproportionately serve poorer people, raising the minimum wage is like a regressive consumption tax paid for by the poor to subsidize the wages of workers.
What we have, in sum, is a very complicated situation. If we do raise the minimum wage a lot of people will clearly benefit and a lot of people will clearly be hurt. The most objective and broadest bits of evidence provoke ambivalence. One survey of economists by the University of Chicago found that 59 percent believed that a rise to $9 an hour would make it “noticeably harder” for poor people to find work. But a slight majority also thought the hike would be worthwhile for those in jobs. A study by the Congressional Budget Office found that a hike to $10.10 might lift 900,000 out of poverty but cost roughly 500,000 jobs.
My own guess is the economists will never be able to give us a dispositive answer about who is hurt or helped.
The best reasonable guess is a gradual hike in high-cost cities like Seattle or New York will probably not produce massive dislocation. But raising the wage to $15 in rural New York will cause large disruptions and job losses.
The key intellectual upshot is that, despite what some people want you to believe, the laws of economic gravity have not been suspended. You can’t impose costs on some without trade-offs for others.
David Brooks is a columnist for The New York Times.