Did Minimum Wage Increases Hurt Employment During the Great Recession?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


There’s a new paper out about the minimum wage. Jeffrey Clemens of UC San Diego estimates that minimum wage increases during the Great Recession decreased employment by 5.6 percentage points among workers age 16-30 without a high school diploma. Tyler Cowen comments:

I hope this receives the media attention it deserves. Will it?

Here’s the problem: as near as I can tell, the world is awash in minimum wage studies. With no disrespect intended toward Clemens—whose conclusions sound reasonable—a single study just isn’t that meaningful these days.

Because of this, I don’t usually spend much time highlighting specific new minimum wage studies. A few months ago I broke this rule to write about a paper estimating the employment shock from the Mariel boat lift, and not much later I ended up writing a second post that basically dismantled the paper. If I’d waited, I would have ignored the whole thing. There’s just too much statistical detail in these papers for a layman to gauge their reliability.

For what it’s worth, I’d note a couple of things about Clemens’ paper. First, Clemens compares employment across states, not counties. Those are pretty big units for comparison, so a bit of caution about the results would be sensible. Second—as with the Mariel boat lift paper—this is pretty much a destruction test. If minimum wage increases don’t have an effect on employment even during a massive recession, then we might as well just bump up the minimum wage to $15 right now and not worry about it. In this case, Clemens studied the most vulnerable possible population during the biggest recession in a century, and still came up with only 5.6 percentage points. That’s not nothing, but it’s not huge either.

I won’t be surprised if Clemens turns out to be right. It certainly seems like minimum wage increases during a sharp recession should have a disemployment effect. At the same time, it’s not clear what the policy implications of this are. We never know when a recession is going to hit, so avoiding disemployment during recessions would mean never increasing the minimum wage.

In any case, I can’t really judge the fairly involved math that Clemens uses to extract a signal from the employment noise, so for the moment I have no opinion about this paper. Eventually a bunch of other people will weigh in, and a bunch of other studies will be done. Once all that is done, maybe we can draw some conclusions.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate