The $10.10 Minimum Wage Proposal: An Evaluation across States
This paper offers state-level estimates of job loss from increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour in 2016. Given the vast differences in nominal wages across geography, a federal increase in minimum wage that is not indexed to local wage levels will have a differential impacts across s...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of labor research 2014-12, Vol.35 (4), p.323-345 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 345 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 323 |
| container_title | Journal of labor research |
| container_volume | 35 |
| creator | Hanson, Andrew Hawley, Zackary |
| description | This paper offers state-level estimates of job loss from increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour in 2016. Given the vast differences in nominal wages across geography, a federal increase in minimum wage that is not indexed to local wage levels will have a differential impacts across states. The proposed minimum wage would be binding for between 17 and 18 % of workers nationally. We estimate coverage rates ranging from just 4 % in Washington D.C. to as high as 51 % in Puerto Rico, with 13 states having at least 20 % of the employed population covered by the proposal. Using labor demand elasticities from previous empirical work, these coverage rates imply national employment losses between 550,000 and 1.5 million workers. The range of state estimates shows that states are differentially impacted, with high-end loss estimates ranging between 2.8 % of covered employees in Arkansas to over 41 % in Puerto Rico. Sensitivity analysis highlights that using even a simple methodology with relatively few assumptions for estimating employment loss from minimum wage changes is subject to a high degree of uncertainty. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s12122-014-9190-8 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1692280382</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3500008281</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-96eeacf07e404443d3e861804ab764fe38569e9039d2cef296df06a90ed3315e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkEtLw0AUhQdRsFZ_gLsBXbiJ3nlkMiO4KKU-oKJgxeUwJjc1JY86kwj-e9PGhQiCqwuX7xw4HyHHDM4ZQHIRGGecR8BkZJiBSO-QETNCRTJRepeMgJk4EoqJfXIQwgqgfyRmRK4Wb0hPty30vqiLqqvoi1siffTNugmuvKSTms4-XNm5tmhq6lLfhECfWtdiOCR7uSsDHn3fMXm-ni2mt9H84eZuOplHqVS6jYxCdGkOCUqQUopMoFZMg3SviZI5Ch0rgwaEyXiKOTcqy0E5A5gJwWIUY3I29K59895haG1VhBTL0tXYdMEyZTjXIDT_ByqUjI1h0KMnv9BV0_m6H9JTPNacaWF6ig3UdrjH3K59UTn_aRnYjXs7uLe9e7txb3Wf4UMm9Gy9RP-j-c_QFyQKgpU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1625821839</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The $10.10 Minimum Wage Proposal: An Evaluation across States</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Hanson, Andrew ; Hawley, Zackary</creator><creatorcontrib>Hanson, Andrew ; Hawley, Zackary</creatorcontrib><description>This paper offers state-level estimates of job loss from increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour in 2016. Given the vast differences in nominal wages across geography, a federal increase in minimum wage that is not indexed to local wage levels will have a differential impacts across states. The proposed minimum wage would be binding for between 17 and 18 % of workers nationally. We estimate coverage rates ranging from just 4 % in Washington D.C. to as high as 51 % in Puerto Rico, with 13 states having at least 20 % of the employed population covered by the proposal. Using labor demand elasticities from previous empirical work, these coverage rates imply national employment losses between 550,000 and 1.5 million workers. The range of state estimates shows that states are differentially impacted, with high-end loss estimates ranging between 2.8 % of covered employees in Arkansas to over 41 % in Puerto Rico. Sensitivity analysis highlights that using even a simple methodology with relatively few assumptions for estimating employment loss from minimum wage changes is subject to a high degree of uncertainty.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0195-3613</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1936-4768</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12122-014-9190-8</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JLRED6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston: Springer US</publisher><subject>Arkansas ; Elasticity of demand ; Employees ; Employment ; Estimates ; Estimation ; Federalism ; Fiscal federalism ; Geography ; Labor ; Labor economics ; Labor market ; Labour market ; Methodology ; Minimum wage ; Minimum wages ; Population ; Puerto Rico ; Sensitivity analysis ; Social Sciences ; States ; Studies ; Uncertainty ; Wages & salaries</subject><ispartof>Journal of labor research, 2014-12, Vol.35 (4), p.323-345</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-96eeacf07e404443d3e861804ab764fe38569e9039d2cef296df06a90ed3315e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12122-014-9190-8$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12122-014-9190-8$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27848,27849,27907,27908,41471,42540,51302</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hanson, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawley, Zackary</creatorcontrib><title>The $10.10 Minimum Wage Proposal: An Evaluation across States</title><title>Journal of labor research</title><addtitle>J Labor Res</addtitle><description>This paper offers state-level estimates of job loss from increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour in 2016. Given the vast differences in nominal wages across geography, a federal increase in minimum wage that is not indexed to local wage levels will have a differential impacts across states. The proposed minimum wage would be binding for between 17 and 18 % of workers nationally. We estimate coverage rates ranging from just 4 % in Washington D.C. to as high as 51 % in Puerto Rico, with 13 states having at least 20 % of the employed population covered by the proposal. Using labor demand elasticities from previous empirical work, these coverage rates imply national employment losses between 550,000 and 1.5 million workers. The range of state estimates shows that states are differentially impacted, with high-end loss estimates ranging between 2.8 % of covered employees in Arkansas to over 41 % in Puerto Rico. Sensitivity analysis highlights that using even a simple methodology with relatively few assumptions for estimating employment loss from minimum wage changes is subject to a high degree of uncertainty.</description><subject>Arkansas</subject><subject>Elasticity of demand</subject><subject>Employees</subject><subject>Employment</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Estimation</subject><subject>Federalism</subject><subject>Fiscal federalism</subject><subject>Geography</subject><subject>Labor</subject><subject>Labor economics</subject><subject>Labor market</subject><subject>Labour market</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Minimum wage</subject><subject>Minimum wages</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Puerto Rico</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>States</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><subject>Wages & salaries</subject><issn>0195-3613</issn><issn>1936-4768</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkEtLw0AUhQdRsFZ_gLsBXbiJ3nlkMiO4KKU-oKJgxeUwJjc1JY86kwj-e9PGhQiCqwuX7xw4HyHHDM4ZQHIRGGecR8BkZJiBSO-QETNCRTJRepeMgJk4EoqJfXIQwgqgfyRmRK4Wb0hPty30vqiLqqvoi1siffTNugmuvKSTms4-XNm5tmhq6lLfhECfWtdiOCR7uSsDHn3fMXm-ni2mt9H84eZuOplHqVS6jYxCdGkOCUqQUopMoFZMg3SviZI5Ch0rgwaEyXiKOTcqy0E5A5gJwWIUY3I29K59895haG1VhBTL0tXYdMEyZTjXIDT_ByqUjI1h0KMnv9BV0_m6H9JTPNacaWF6ig3UdrjH3K59UTn_aRnYjXs7uLe9e7txb3Wf4UMm9Gy9RP-j-c_QFyQKgpU</recordid><startdate>20141201</startdate><enddate>20141201</enddate><creator>Hanson, Andrew</creator><creator>Hawley, Zackary</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141201</creationdate><title>The $10.10 Minimum Wage Proposal: An Evaluation across States</title><author>Hanson, Andrew ; Hawley, Zackary</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-96eeacf07e404443d3e861804ab764fe38569e9039d2cef296df06a90ed3315e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Arkansas</topic><topic>Elasticity of demand</topic><topic>Employees</topic><topic>Employment</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Estimation</topic><topic>Federalism</topic><topic>Fiscal federalism</topic><topic>Geography</topic><topic>Labor</topic><topic>Labor economics</topic><topic>Labor market</topic><topic>Labour market</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Minimum wage</topic><topic>Minimum wages</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Puerto Rico</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>States</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><topic>Wages & salaries</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hanson, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawley, Zackary</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of labor research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hanson, Andrew</au><au>Hawley, Zackary</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The $10.10 Minimum Wage Proposal: An Evaluation across States</atitle><jtitle>Journal of labor research</jtitle><stitle>J Labor Res</stitle><date>2014-12-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>323</spage><epage>345</epage><pages>323-345</pages><issn>0195-3613</issn><eissn>1936-4768</eissn><coden>JLRED6</coden><abstract>This paper offers state-level estimates of job loss from increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour in 2016. Given the vast differences in nominal wages across geography, a federal increase in minimum wage that is not indexed to local wage levels will have a differential impacts across states. The proposed minimum wage would be binding for between 17 and 18 % of workers nationally. We estimate coverage rates ranging from just 4 % in Washington D.C. to as high as 51 % in Puerto Rico, with 13 states having at least 20 % of the employed population covered by the proposal. Using labor demand elasticities from previous empirical work, these coverage rates imply national employment losses between 550,000 and 1.5 million workers. The range of state estimates shows that states are differentially impacted, with high-end loss estimates ranging between 2.8 % of covered employees in Arkansas to over 41 % in Puerto Rico. Sensitivity analysis highlights that using even a simple methodology with relatively few assumptions for estimating employment loss from minimum wage changes is subject to a high degree of uncertainty.</abstract><cop>Boston</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s12122-014-9190-8</doi><tpages>23</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0195-3613 |
| ispartof | Journal of labor research, 2014-12, Vol.35 (4), p.323-345 |
| issn | 0195-3613 1936-4768 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1692280382 |
| source | PAIS Index; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Arkansas Elasticity of demand Employees Employment Estimates Estimation Federalism Fiscal federalism Geography Labor Labor economics Labor market Labour market Methodology Minimum wage Minimum wages Population Puerto Rico Sensitivity analysis Social Sciences States Studies Uncertainty Wages & salaries |
| title | The $10.10 Minimum Wage Proposal: An Evaluation across States |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T13%3A20%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20$10.10%20Minimum%20Wage%20Proposal:%20An%20Evaluation%20across%20States&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20labor%20research&rft.au=Hanson,%20Andrew&rft.date=2014-12-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=323&rft.epage=345&rft.pages=323-345&rft.issn=0195-3613&rft.eissn=1936-4768&rft.coden=JLRED6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12122-014-9190-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3500008281%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1625821839&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |