By Joseph J. Sabia
Guest Contributor
The minimum wage debate has reignited in recent months as Congress considers the Raise the Wage Act of 2019, a bill that would more than double the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. Skeptics worry that a 107% increase in the minimum wage will substantially reduce low-skilled employment, hurting many of the vulnerable workers it was designed to help.
But a $15 minimum wage could mean more than lost jobs.
My new research, co-authored with Zachary Fone of the University of New Hampshire and Resul Cesur of the University of Connecticut, finds evidence that some affected younger workers turn to property crime as a consequence of a higher minimum wage.
Our study examined two decades of data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, the National Incident-Based Reporting System, and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997. We focused on younger, less experienced teens and young adults who make up a disproportionate share of the minimum wage workforce, and who are more likely to face the brunt of any increase. We examined various types of crimes including property, violent, and drug crime.
Our results are clear. Over the period from 1998 to 2016, we find no evidence that minimum wage increases reduced net crime, as some proponents hoped. Instead, we find that minimum wage hikes increased property crime arrests among those ages 16 to 24. Specifically, we find that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 2 percent increase in property crime. Applying our estimates to the $15 minimum wage proposal now before Congress, we estimate that such a policy shock could lead to over 410,000 additional property crimes, generating $2.4 billion in additional crime costs to society.
This conclusion stands in stark contrast to a report released by President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) in April 2016, which concluded that a minimum wage increase to $12 an hour would have led to a 3-to-5 percent reduction in crime. While we respect the team of economists working at the CEA at that time, the report’s conclusion unfortunately rested on the assumption that minimum wage increases would only generate wage gains without any substantial offsetting employment or human capital effects. Our study shows that these effects cannot be ignored.
Fortunately, policymakers need not grapple with the tradeoff of higher wages for some at the expense of fewer jobs and more property crime among others. There are policy alternatives to the minimum wage that better help vulnerable workers and are far better targeted to those most in need.
Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has been shown to increase income and reduce poverty for many vulnerable workers without the unintended consequences of a higher minimum wage. Because workers have to earn income to receive the EITC, it has the added benefit of boosting employment. It is also far better targeted to the working poor than the minimum wage due to eligibility requirements.
Raising the wages of low-skilled workers is a laudable policy goal. But if a government mandated raise comes at the expense of a job – and induces young jobseekers to earn money through illegal means — then policymakers should look elsewhere for better solutions to reduce poverty.
Joseph J. Sabia is Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for Health Economics & Policy Studies at San Diego State University and the University of New Hampshire.
Issues & Insights is a new site formed by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. We’re just getting started, and we’ll be adding new features as time permits. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide.
Be sure to tell all your friends! And if you’d like to make a contribution to support our effort, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right.
Using these vague “policy violations,” Google is now threatening to demonetize us. It’s part of Big Tech’s effort to silence conservative voices.
correlation and causation are two different things
AT LAST. And “I” expect you at “issues & insights”, (if I have it correctly), TO LIVE UP TO YOUR PROMISE. I am able to discern the truth from fiction ‘most’ of the time but I would rather have numbers to work with, (immutable little fiends that they are). Failing that, I&I could very well be a suitable and reliable substitute for my fallible “truth discernment” meter… THIS article alone bodes well for my hopes…… The premise of this article is well thought out and as accurate an speculative article as I have read in my life. This site is on my permanent list of sites to visit . DON’T let me down…. Please…… And, of course, thank you in advance.
P.S. A tip jar is it…? As soon as I am able to get a sighted person to help me, I DO intend to ‘tip’ the jar. I can not say when that will be, but an EXCELLENTLY PHRASED request is worthy of a positive response, (as is dictated by means available, naturally)…..
Thank you! We’ll do our best not to let you down.
I believe the libs seek a minimum wage that will allow a person to support himself and wife and 2 children – hence $15 per hour. What about single folk? How will this affect them? Negatively I suspect. And the libs don’t give a damn; their narrative is more important.
Good grief, how is this even a question? It means fewer entry level jobs. The people who would have taken those jobs have NO resume with which to get something better, they lack the resources to find a place where jobs they could get are still available, and most of them don’t meet requirements to enlist in the military.
Where are they going to go? What are they going to do?
You BET the areas they live in will be less safe.
Addendum: “While we respect the team of economists working at the CEA at that time, the report’s conclusion unfortunately rested on the assumption that minimum wage increases would only generate wage gains without any substantial offsetting employment or human capital effects.”
Please explain how you manage to respect economists who base a conclusion on the view that making a commodity more expensive doesn’t reduce consumption.
Details, please.
aaa
Unskilled labor is not worth $15/hour. There is no job they do which creates the $15 per hour needed to pay them. Any employer who hired them would lose money. Therefore, they won’t hire them.