Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 474

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Revisiting the Minimum Wage—Employment Debate: Throwing Out the Baby with the Bathwater?

Neumark, David, Salas, J. M. Ian, Wascher, William·2014·ILR Review
DOI 10.1177/00197939140670s307
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The authors revisit the long-running minimum wage–employment debate to assess new studies claiming that estimates produced by the panel data approach commonly used in recent minimum wage research are flawed by that approach's failure to account for spatial heterogeneity. The new studies use research designs intended to control for this heterogeneity and conclude that minimum wages in the United States have not reduced employment. The authors explore the ability of the new research designs to isolate reliable identifying information, and they test the designs' untested assumptions about the construction of better control groups. Their analysis reveals problems with the new research designs. Moreover, using methods that let the data identify the appropriate control groups, their results reaffirm the evidence of disemployment effects, with teen employment elasticities near −0.15. This evidence, they conclude, still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00197939140670s307

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 37 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Aaronson Daniel, 2007, Explaining the decline in teen labor force participation
  2. Card David, 1994, American Economic Review, 84, 772
  3. Jones Margaret, 2012, The effects of living wages on wages, employment, and hours worked: New evidence using propensity score matching
  4. 10.1016/S0047-2727(97)00085-6 · doi:10.1016/s0047-2727(97)00085-6
  5. 10.1177/001979396001300207 · doi:10.1177/001979396001300207
  6. 10.1177/001979399404700309 · doi:10.1177/001979399404700309
  7. 10.1177/001979391106400405 · doi:10.1177/001979391106400405
  8. Obenauer Marie L., 1915, Effect of minimum-wage determination in Oregon
  9. 10.1086/257960 · doi:10.1086/257960
  10. 10.1177/001979395901200305 · doi:10.1177/001979395901200305
  11. 10.1017/CBO9780511809798.012 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809798.012
  12. Smith Christopher L., 2011, The polarization of the U.S. adult labor market and its effects on the demand for teenage labor
  13. Watson Nadine, 1996, Positive minimum wage effects on employment—Alternative explanations

Cited by

See all 474

Metadata

Authors
Neumark, D., Salas, J. M. I., & Wascher, W.
Venue
ILR Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2014-05
Volume
67
Issue
3_suppl
Pages
608-648
ISSN
  • 0019-7939 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-271X
DOI
10.1177/00197939140670s307
OpenAlex
W3121742762
Cited by
474
References
37
FWCI
106.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Revisiting the Minimum Wage—Employment Debate: Throwing Out the Baby with the Bathwater? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/00197939140670s307
The paper
Neumark, D., Salas, J. M. I., & Wascher, W. (2014). Revisiting the Minimum Wage—Employment Debate: Throwing Out the Baby with the Bathwater? ILR Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939140670s307

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.