From Greg Mankiw's blog: Neumark on the Minimum Wage. Dr. Mankiw quotes economics professor David Neumark:

The central goal of raising the minimum wage is to raise incomes of low-income families and reduce poverty. There are three reasons why raising the minimum may not help to achieve this goal. First, a higher minimum wage may discourage employers from using the very low-wage, low-skill workers that minimum wages are intended to help. Second, a higher minimum wage may hurt poor and low-income families rather than help them, if the disemployment effects are concentrated among workers in low-income families. And third, a higher minimum wage may reduce training, schooling, and work experience—all of which are important sources of higher wages—and hence make it harder for workers to attain the higher-wage jobs that may be the best means to an acceptable level of family income.

The evidence from a large body of existing research suggests that minimum wage increases do more harm than good. Minimum wages reduce employment of young and less-skilled workers. Minimum wages deliver no net benefits to poor or low-income families, and if anything make them worse off, increasing poverty. Finally, there is some evidence that minimum wages have longer-run adverse effects, lowering the acquisition of skills and therefore lowering wages and earnings even beyond the age when individuals are most directly affected by a higher minimum….

Those interested in using economic policy levers to redistribute income to lower-income families should instead push for policy options that encourage work, that better target poor and low-income families, and that have a proven record of reducing poverty. The Earned Income Tax Credit, which is implemented at the federal level and supplemented by many states, appears to satisfy all of these criteria and thus is a better redistributive policy.


Comments

2 responses to “Neumark on the Minimum Wage”

  1. So, let me get this straight… Neumark, who probably has the opportunity to negotiate his wages from time to time, would do without a wage increase for himself, yes? Because, otherwise he’d have nothing to reach for, no reason to acquire new skills?
    Just taking his thoughts to their logical end in his own arena. And thinking his boss probably likes him a whole lot at budget time. 🙂

  2. I think you are missing his point. Of course he will seek wage increases but the way he will seek them is that he demostrates a high degree of quality production relative to other options his employer has. The reason the vast majority of people who earn a minimum wage do so is because they are very low skilled. They have nothing to negotiate with because they are without sufficient skills and experience to command a higher wage.
    A great many of those earning minimum wage are young people with little skill and no experience. If you artifically raise the wage to a level above the work output they are able to perform employers will simply find alternate means to accomplish the same ends (ex. outsourcing, automation), thus eliminating jobs for low-skilled people. That is a called a zero-wage program.
    The myth is that the vast majority of people who earn the minimum wage are adult workers living in poverty. Increase the wage and you reduce poverty. About 20% of those who earn the minimum wage live in households with $80,000 or more in income. The median income of households where minimum wage earners live is $40,000 a year. Only 15% of minimum wage earners live in poverty households.
    I hope we would agree that the objective is to actually lift people out of poverty with sound policy. Neumark is saying that while minimum wage laws, as an anti-poverty method, make great sound bites, but they are ineffective and possibly harmful. More sound approaches appear to be targeted programs, skill set enhancement and things like the earned income tax credit.

Leave a Reply to L.L. BarkatCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading