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

Governor Newsom Bars Californians from Self-Medicating with Psychedelics

October 9, 2023

The Government Can’t Target TikTok Because of the...

June 28, 2024

Is Driving in California Subsidized?

July 16, 2024

Inflation Has Been Coming Down So Fed’s Rate...

June 15, 2023

Capitalism—The Best System on (and for) Earth

April 22, 2024

Financial Economists Dismiss Stock Buyback Fury

May 10, 2023

Immigrants Receive Less Medicare and Medicaid Per Person

September 17, 2024

Spotlighting Protester Surveillance: FOIA Lawsuit Edition

May 2, 2023

Friday Feature: Sonoran Learning Collective

January 24, 2025

DOGE Recommendations: Federal Health Spending

December 11, 2024

Governor Newsom Bars Californians from Self-Medicating with Psychedelics

October 9, 2023

The Government Can’t Target TikTok Because of the...

June 28, 2024

Is Driving in California Subsidized?

July 16, 2024

Inflation Has Been Coming Down So Fed’s Rate...

June 15, 2023

Capitalism—The Best System on (and for) Earth

April 22, 2024

Financial Economists Dismiss Stock Buyback Fury

May 10, 2023

Immigrants Receive Less Medicare and Medicaid Per Person

September 17, 2024

Spotlighting Protester Surveillance: FOIA Lawsuit Edition

May 2, 2023

Friday Feature: Sonoran Learning Collective

January 24, 2025

DOGE Recommendations: Federal Health Spending

December 11, 2024

    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

    • UK government confirms tighter steel import safeguards from 1 July to protect domestic industry

      June 30, 2025
    • Iran’s nuclear capabilities crushed, but regime’s desire for the bomb may persist

      June 30, 2025
    • Trump’s 24th week set to focus on ‘big, beautiful bill’ passage ahead of Independence Day deadline

      June 30, 2025
    • Trump’s new American doctrine means peace through strength has returned

      June 30, 2025
    • Entry-level jobs slump 32% amid rise of AI and growing employer costs

      June 30, 2025
    • Canada shelves digital services tax to revive US trade talks

      June 30, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,340)
    • Investing (2,081)
    • Politics (15,868)
    • 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