Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

More Hidden Costs of Minimum Wage Hikes: A Randomized Control Trial

by January 10, 2025
January 10, 2025
More Hidden Costs of Minimum Wage Hikes: A Randomized Control Trial

Sophia Bagley and Ryan Bourne

This year kicks off with minimum wage hikes across 21 states. Economists have long documented that while minimum wage increases often boost wages for those who remain employed, there are no free lunches. Extensive research shows minimum wage increases to high levels tend to hurt new and low-skilled workers as businesses respond by cutting hours or hiring opportunities.

Moreover, newer research has found that businesses may use other margins of adjustment to cope with wage floors than layoffs or hour cuts. From reducing workplace perks and non-pay benefits to favoring seasoned employees over newbies, businesses are finding creative ways to soften the blow. These adjustments erode job quality and often shrink opportunities for the very workers minimum wage hikes aim to help.

Quantifying these hidden shifts is a nightmare. Most data doesn’t capture these subtle changes, meaning that the existing literature produces different results based on which groups are studied and how labor market health is factored in. Enter John Horton from NYU. His latest paper in the American Economic Review sheds light on minimum wage hikes through an innovative methodology, revealing that low-productivity workers might be hit harder by minimum wage laws than economists typically tend to conclude.

Horton ran a randomized control experiment on a large online labor platform where firms post jobs for tasks like data entry, graphic design, or programming. Workers bid for jobs by proposing hourly wages, with firms selecting these workers based on their applications.

The experiment assigned around 160,000 hourly job openings to four groups: a control group with no wage floor (a minimum wage of $0) and three treatment groups with minimum wages of $2, $3, or $4 per hour. Random assignment ensured comparable groups, while the platform’s software enforced minimum wages without notifying participants, thus maintaining the integrity of the randomized trial. Later, the platform imposed a market-wide minimum wage, this time announcing it beforehand. This second phase allowed Horton to study how firms and workers react when a wage floor is uniformly applied—much like in the real world.

His findings were quite striking:

Hired workers saw their wages rise.
Higher minimum wage rates led to fewer hires.
Hours worked dipped, even at the lowest wage increases.
Most of the hour cuts came from firms swapping out low-productivity workers for their more efficient counterparts, speeding up task completion.

Simply put, pricier labor means employers want less of it. Faced with higher hourly wage costs, they also leaned towards hiring more productive workers, which accounted for nearly half the hour reductions. For many low-skilled workers, a high minimum wage could thus mean being booted out of the job market entirely. Even if overall employment doesn’t drop when a wage floor is raised, those lowest-skilled may still face significant harm, getting edged out by more experienced employees.

Horton’s experiment stands out because, unlike traditional studies, he could track workers’ real-time productivity, looking at the distributional impact of the policy by worker skill level. His randomized research design also cuts through potential biases that often skew minimum wage research.

So, what’s the key takeaway? Horton’s findings present an important question: Have other researchers been underestimating how rising wage floors impact low-skilled workers? If his results echo across other labor markets, studies claiming no overall disemployment effects from minimum wages might be masking a harsh reality: hidden beneath the aggregate numbers, lower-skilled workers getting replaced by higher-skilled ones.

It’s another reminder that, even if they don’t cut jobs, many of the ways firms adjust to higher wage floors can still hurt the least experienced workers.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Trump faces influence test at Mar-a-Lago with warring House GOP factions: ‘How do we move forward?’
next post
S&P 500 Earnings 2024 Q3: Still Overvalued

You may also like

On Japan, Washington’s Economic Policies Belie Rhetoric

April 12, 2024

Considering Safe Banking for the Cannabis Industry

May 23, 2024

New Data on Trump’s Border Security Record: Releasing...

October 30, 2024

The US Tax and Transfer System Has Become...

March 7, 2025

Friday Feature: Savannah Legacy Academy

June 27, 2025

Poll: 63% of Americans Want to Increase Trade...

August 7, 2024

Must California Take Two Months To Resolve a...

May 10, 2024

More on Free Trade’s “Pro-Poor Bias”

March 29, 2024

The Lesson from Oregon: Drug Decriminalization Is a...

November 7, 2024

Book Review: The Menace of Fiscal QE

June 26, 2023

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • How Staff Can Strengthen HIPAA Compliance and Security

      June 29, 2025
    • Lotus denies plans to close Hethel factory amid US expansion talks

      June 29, 2025
    • Top university degrees lose sway as tech employers prioritise job-ready skills

      June 29, 2025
    • Government urges supermarkets to make healthy food more appealing in bid to tackle obesity crisis

      June 29, 2025
    • Senate Republicans ram Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ through key test vote

      June 29, 2025
    • Chief Justice Roberts sounds alarm on dangerous rhetoric aimed at judges from politicians

      June 29, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,334)
    • Investing (2,081)
    • Politics (15,853)
    • Stocks (3,177)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved