Research tracker

What the minimum wage research finds — and why it disagrees

Thirty years of studies, in one place. Each entry has a short, neutral summary of the headline result. We make a strong case against wage floors elsewhere on this site; here, the job is to show the evidence as it is, including the parts that cut against us.

Reading the literature

Why careful economists reach different answers

The disagreement is not mostly about ideology. It comes from a handful of hard measurement problems. Knowing them makes any single headline easier to judge.

01

Who is the comparison group?

States that raise wages differ from those that don't. Border-county and trend-adjusted designs (Dube, Allegretto, Reich) tend to find small effects; critics (Neumark, Salas, Wascher) argue those controls throw away the variation that reveals job losses.

02

How much does the floor bite?

A modest increase where most workers already earn more is a different experiment from a large increase relative to local wages. Small, well-studied U.S. increases say little about very high floors.

03

Which workers are counted?

Teenagers, restaurant workers, all low-wage jobs, or the least-skilled adults: effects concentrated in a small group can disappear when averaged over a broader one.

04

Jobs, or something else?

Employers can adjust hours, prices, hiring, training, scheduling, or automation instead of headcount. Seattle's main signal was hours; Hungary's was prices; Germany's was workers moving between firms.

05

Short run or long run?

Some effects show up as slower job growth or fewer new businesses over years rather than layoffs on day one, which short before-and-after windows can miss.

06

Data and publication choices

Survey data versus payroll records, and which estimate a paper calls "preferred", can flip conclusions. Meta-analyses also find signs that published results lean toward significant negatives.

Where we stand Our reading: the evidence does not show that moderate increases always destroy large numbers of jobs, and honest advocates of abolition should say so. It does show real costs at the margin — fewer hours, slower hiring, fewer entry-level rungs — that grow with the size of the increase and fall on the least experienced. That is why we prefer tools like the EITC that raise incomes without raising the cost of a first job. The strongest counter-argument is monopsony.
The tracker

Major studies and reports

Filter by headline finding, search by author or place, and sort by year. Labels are our coarse summary of each study's main employment result, not a grade on its quality.

This list is curated and not exhaustive; it favors influential, frequently cited work on both sides. Summaries are simplified — read the originals for methods and exact estimates. Data: data/studies.json. Last updated October 2026.