REPLY TO “CREDIBLE RESEARCH DESIGNS FOR MINIMUM WAGE STUDIES”

The authors make three points in this reply to the article by Allegretto, Dube, Reich, and Zipperer (ADRZ 2017). First, ADRZ shed no new light on the sensitivity of estimated minimum wage employment effects to the treatment of trends in state-level panel data, and they make some arguments in this co...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Industrial & labor relations review 2017-05, Vol.70 (3), p.593-609
Main Authors: NEUMARK, DAVID, WASCHER, WILLIAM
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Dislocated workers
Employment
Labor market
Labor relations
Markets
Minimum Wage
Panel data
Research design
Wages & salaries
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The authors make three points in this reply to the article by Allegretto, Dube, Reich, and Zipperer (ADRZ 2017). First, ADRZ shed no new light on the sensitivity of estimated minimum wage employment effects to the treatment of trends in state-level panel data, and they make some arguments in this context that are misleading or simply wrong. Second, the key issue ADRZ emphasize—using “close controls” to account for shocks that are correlated with minimum wage changes—does not generate large differences in findings, and ADRZ do not address evidence from Neumark, Salas, and Wascher (NSW 2014a) that questions the validity of the close controls used in Allegretto, Dube, and Reich’s (ADR 2011) and Dube, Lester, and Reich’s (DLR 2010) work. Third, ADRZ ignore or dismiss a growing number of studies that address in various ways the same issue of potential correlations between minimum wages and shocks to low-skill labor markets that ADRZ argue generate spurious evidence of disemployment effects, yet often find rather large negative effects of minimum wages on low-skilled employment.
ISSN:0019-7939
2162-271X
DOI:10.1177/0019793917698429