Minimum Wage

A minimum wage is the lowest hourly pay that an employer may legally offer a worker, set by national or sub-national law, sometimes by sector, and in some countries through collective agreements. It is one of the oldest forms of direct labour-market regulation, and it sits at the centre of a long-running argument in economics about whether a legal floor protects low-paid workers or prices some of them out of jobs. Its effects reach labor markets, income distribution, consumer prices and poverty rates, which is why it is studied with tools from microeconomics, econometrics and public law alike.

This entry first traces what a minimum wage is, how it is legally structured, and where it came from, from medieval wage ordinances to the 1938 federal law in the United States. It then sets out the main theoretical models, including the competitive benchmark and monopsony power, and reviews the empirical evidence on employment, earnings and prices, along with the distributional question of who is actually paid at or near the floor. The later sections cover how governments choose and index the rate, how systems differ across countries, the current United States patchwork of federal and state rates, how compliance is enforced, how the wage floor interacts with tax and transfer policies, and the questions that remain contested.

Definition and legal structure

A minimum wage is a statutory floor on the hourly rate an employer may pay for work. Because it is set per hour, it differs from annual salary floors, which some jurisdictions apply to particular occupations, such as the salary test that determines whether a white-collar worker can be exempt from overtime. It also differs from piece rates, which pay for output. A piece-rate worker must still earn at least the statutory minimum for each hour worked, so pay is checked against total hours rather than units produced. Overtime rules form a separate layer. They require a premium for hours beyond a weekly threshold, usually one and one-half times the regular rate, but they do not set the base floor itself.

In the United States the central instrument is the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. It applies to most private and public employees, but it exempts defined categories. Bona fide executive, administrative and professional employees are exempt from both minimum wage and overtime if they meet a salary test and a duties test. The Department of Labor's current salary threshold dates from a 2019 rule. Outside sales staff and certain computer professionals are also exempt, as are some domestic workers employed directly in private homes and workers on small farms that use little outside paid labor. Exemptions are read narrowly, and the employer bears the burden of showing that one applies.

The relationship to contract law is one of mandatory overlay. Contract law generally lets parties agree on the terms of an exchange, including pay. The FLSA, by contrast, sets a minimum that may be exceeded but cannot be waived or reduced by private agreement, so a contract clause specifying a lower hourly rate is unenforceable to that extent, and a worker can recover the statutory shortfall regardless of what was signed. The same logic makes the law layered in practice. Federal, state and local minimums coexist, and where more than one applies, the higher rate governs. This layering is a direct consequence of the federal structure of American legislation.

Subminimum rates are the principal exceptions to the single floor. The most important is the tipped wage. Under the FLSA, an employer may pay a tipped employee a cash wage of $2.13 an hour and claim a tip credit of up to $5.12 an hour, provided that tips bring total hourly earnings to at least $7.25. The tipped wage has been unchanged since 1991. The employer's obligations are conditional. Workers must customarily receive more than $30 a month in tips to count as tipped employees, employers must generally notify them before taking the credit, and any shortfall must be made up within the same pay period. Several states prohibit the tip credit entirely, and others set higher cash wages for tipped staff. The FLSA also permits special minimums for workers with disabilities under certain conditions, and for some new hires under 20, full-time students and student learners in vocational programs.

The rate itself can be fixed in several ways. The simplest is a statutory figure that changes only when the legislature amends the law, which is the federal approach: Congress last raised the federal rate in 2009, and it has no automatic adjustment. Other systems index the rate to inflation, so that it rises with consumer prices without a new vote. A third approach ties the floor to a share of the median wage, which links it to the earnings distribution rather than to the cost of living. Each method trades predictability against responsiveness, and the choice determines how quickly the real value of the floor erodes or recovers. Later sections examine these benchmarks and their effects in detail.

Historical origins and development

Wage regulation predates the modern minimum wage by several centuries. After the Black Death reduced England's labour supply, the Crown tried to hold pay down. The Statute of Labourers of 1351 fixed the wages that had been paid in 1346 as a ceiling, and it set a maximum wage for labourers that was commensurate with wages paid before the Black Death. Employers were barred from offering more, and able-bodied people under sixty who did not follow a trade were expected to accept work at those rates (employers were forbidden from paying more than the set rate, and those without employment were required to take work when offered at the fixed rate). The law therefore worked as a price control in reverse: it capped pay rather than guaranteeing a minimum. Enforcement was uneven. The Statute was poorly enforced in most areas, and farm wages in England on average doubled between 1350 and 1450. Prosecutions also fell mostly on workers, since courts punished workers for breaking the statute far more frequently than they sanctioned employers.

The first statutory floors of the modern type appeared in the 1890s. New Zealand's Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1894 took effect through compulsory arbitration, a mechanism conferred upon the arbitration court the authority to fix the conditions of employment, and it was designed to prevent strikes and lockouts. Victoria followed in 1896, when an amendment to the Factories and Shops Act established the principle of minimum wages set by trade-specific Special Boards. Those boards could set rates by age, sex and occupation. They began with six trades and had grown to cover 150 different industries by 1904. The campaign behind the Victorian law was a response to sweating, and the sweatshops employed large numbers of women and young workers, paying them what were considered to be substandard wages. Early schemes were selective and often temporary. Frequently, minimum wages were considered as a temporary measure, to be phased out once wage bargaining between social partners would be established. The United Kingdom followed with its own boards in 1909, and the wage board model spread from there.

In the United States, the Fair Labor Standards Act was signed on 25 June 1938 as part of the New Deal. Its first federal floor was 25 cents an hour, and the law also set a 44-hour maximum workweek. Its coverage was narrow. In its final form, the act applied to industries whose combined employment represented only about one-fifth of the labor force. Southern opposition shaped the final text. Provisions were altered so that wage administrators had to weigh lower costs of living and higher freight rates in the South before recommending rates above the minimum. Before 1938, state laws had already spread: By 1925, fifteen states had passed minimum wage laws, although the U.S. Supreme Court later ruled several of the laws unconstitutional. After 1938, federal increases came in steps: the rate rose to 30 cents in 1939 and to 40 cents by 1945 (October 1938, October 1939 and October 1945 were the effective dates for the first three levels), reached 75 cents in 1950, and became $7.25 per hour on 24 July 2009. The long gap since that increase is the basis for the later discussion of federal policy.

The International Labour Organization adopted the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention (No. 131) in 1970. It asked member states to set up minimum wage systems covering groups of employees whose pay is particularly low, with rates set in consultation with representative employers' and workers' organisations and in light of workers' needs and economic conditions. A companion recommendation, No. 135, elaborated these criteria. The convention marked a shift away from the selective, protective schemes of the early twentieth century toward a general, institutionalised approach. It has been ratified by a substantial but far from universal group of member states.

Theoretical models

Economists do not share one model of how a binding wage floor works. The answer depends mainly on how the labour market is assumed to be structured. Four frameworks dominate the debate: the competitive benchmark, monopsony, search and matching models, and efficiency-wage and bargaining accounts. Each predicts different effects on employment and wages, and each identifies different channels through which firms adjust.

The competitive benchmark

In the textbook model of perfect competition, wages adjust until labour supply equals labour demand in the labour market. A floor set above this market-clearing wage is binding. It raises the cost of labour for every employer who would otherwise hire at a lower rate, so firms move up their labour demand curves and hire fewer workers, cut hours, or substitute capital for labour. At the same time, the higher wage attracts more people into the market, so some who want work at the new rate cannot find it. The change in employment is roughly $\Delta L \approx \varepsilon_d \, L \, \frac{\Delta w}{w}$, where $\varepsilon_d < 0$ is the elasticity of labour demand. The size of the job loss therefore depends on how responsive labour demand and labour supply are to pay, which is the core of the supply-and-demand logic. The model also implies a deadweight loss, because some mutually beneficial hires disappear. Critics note that real markets contain many employers and frictions, so this sharp prediction is better read as a baseline than as a complete account.

Monopsony

When a single employer, or a few employers in a local market, can set wages, the analysis changes. A monopsonist knows that hiring an extra worker requires raising pay for all workers, so its marginal labour cost exceeds the wage. Writing $\varepsilon_s$ for the elasticity of labour supply facing the firm, the marginal cost of labour is $w\left(1 + \frac{1}{\varepsilon_s}\right)$. The firm hires where this cost equals the marginal revenue product of labour, which leaves both employment and wages below competitive levels. A floor set between the monopsony wage and the competitive wage removes the incentive to restrict hiring, so it can raise both pay and employment. Beyond the competitive wage, however, the floor again reduces employment. The implication is that a moderate floor may help while a high one harms, and the threshold depends on how much wage-setting power employers hold in a given labour market. That power varies across occupations, regions and local labour-market concentration.

Search and matching

Search and matching models begin from the observation that finding a job and filling a vacancy take time and resources. Workers cannot costlessly compare all offers, and firms cannot instantly replace a departing worker. Each match therefore creates a surplus, and the wage determines how that surplus is divided. Because quitting is costly, a firm can pay below the worker's productivity and still keep the worker. A floor that lifts the lowest wages can move part of the surplus from firms to workers without ending most matches, as long as it does not make vacancies unprofitable. In these models, employment effects appear mainly as slower hiring and fewer posted vacancies rather than as immediate layoffs. Whether a floor reduces employment therefore depends on how far the floor exceeds the pay that the surplus division would otherwise produce.

Efficiency wages and bargaining

Efficiency-wage theories hold that pay affects worker effort, retention and the quality of applicants. If higher wages reduce shirking, turnover and recruitment costs, a higher floor may partly pay for itself. Firms that paid just above the old floor could respond with lower turnover, greater effort or better selection, offsetting some of the cost. Bargaining models point in a related direction: a mandated increase shifts the split of the match surplus, and the firm's response depends on how much of its margin is squeezed. Firms may absorb the cost through lower profits, pass it on through higher prices, reduce non-wage benefits or hours, or adopt automation to reduce their reliance on low-wage labour. These mechanisms show why job loss is not an automatic consequence of a binding floor. The result depends on which adjustment margins a firm finds cheapest, and that depends on market structure, product demand and existing pay policies. The competing models therefore generate testable but different predictions about employment, hours, prices and turnover, which the empirical literature has tried to distinguish.

Empirical evidence on employment, earnings and prices

The modern empirical debate began with natural experiments. In April 1992 New Jersey raised its floor from $4.25 to $5.05, while neighbouring Pennsylvania stayed at the federal level, and Pennsylvania kept the federal minimum at $4.25. David Card and Alan Krueger's 1994 study used that contrast. They surveyed fast-food restaurants on both sides of the border in two waves, one before and one several months after the change, covering 410 establishments. Their design is a difference-in-differences comparison of changes in New Jersey against changes in Pennsylvania, and it also compared restaurants that already paid above the new floor with those that did not. The authors found no sign of job losses in New Jersey even though about 90% of New Jersey restaurants reported paying exactly the new minimum by late 1992.

The result set off a methodological dispute that is still unsettled. David Neumark and William Wascher argued that the survey data were unreliable, and using payroll records they reported that the minimum-wage increase led to a decline in fast-food employment in New Jersey relative to Pennsylvania. Card and Krueger's later reply used the same administrative source and concluded that the increase probably had no negative effect on total employment, and possibly a small positive one. Subsequent work has focused on whether survey measurement, the choice of comparison areas, and the treatment of firm entry and exit drive these contrasting results, rather than on a single decisive dataset.

Later studies moved toward designs that trace the whole wage distribution. Doruk Cengiz, Arindrajit Dube, Attila Lindner and Ben Zipperer used a bunching estimator that compares the excess jobs created at and just above a new floor with the missing jobs that would otherwise sit below it. Their central finding is that the overall number of low-wage jobs remained essentially unchanged over the five years following the increase, while the direct effect of the minimum wage on average earnings was amplified by modest wage spillovers at the bottom of the wage distribution. The same paper reports that employment in the tradeable sector, and in manufacturing in particular, is likely to be negatively affected, although the estimates are imprecise, whereas the effect in non-tradeable sectors such as restaurants and retail is close to 0. The authors also argue that some conventional studies can produce misleading inference due to spurious changes in employment higher up in the wage distribution. Critics question the assumptions behind bunching, and dynamic-panel and event-study approaches sometimes give smaller or differently signed estimates, so the magnitude of the response depends heavily on the research design.

On prices, the evidence is more consistent than on employment, though not uniform. Studies of restaurants generally find that firms pass much of the labour cost onto customers. Allegretto and Reich examined a 25% increase in San Jose in 2013 and found that average prices rose 1.45%, indicating that most of the cost increase was passed on to consumers. A broader analysis of restaurant menus and price data reports an overall minimum wage price elasticity of 0.058, which implies that a 10% rise in the floor raises restaurant prices by well under 1%. Supermarket scanner studies are less uniform: findings range from no pass-through at all, to relatively small pass-through elasticities, to overshifting. Evidence on hours, turnover and non-wage benefits is thinner. Some studies find that savings from lower turnover offset part of the payroll cost, and the cost increase net of those savings is very similar to the price response, which suggests that most of the increase is passed on. Firm-level data from McDonald's show a wage elasticity with respect to the minimum of about 0.7, and the authors argue that their evidence on prices and technology is consistent with studies that find no or small minimum-wage employment effects in the fast food industry.

The consensus is narrower than the headline debate suggests. There is broad agreement that minimum wage increases raise pay at the bottom of the distribution and are at least partly passed on to prices in low-wage service industries. Disagreement remains about the size and sign of employment effects, especially for teenagers, for tradable sectors, and for large increases. Recent work also finds that the effects can vary across industries and demographic groups. A 2025 study of full-service restaurants using administrative employment data estimated declines in that subsector, while other work focused on young, less-educated workers reports effects concentrated in that group. Several recent studies do not arrive at any clear consensus on the employment effect, and that remains the central point of contention among major research teams.

Distributional effects and who is affected

Minimum-wage workers are concentrated among the young. In 2023, workers under age 25 represented one-fifth of hourly paid workers, but they made up 44 percent of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Teenagers are the most exposed group: 3 percent of employed teenagers paid by the hour earned the minimum wage or less, compared with just under 1 percent of workers age 25 and older. Part-time work is another marker of exposure. About 2 percent of part-time workers were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 1 percent of full-time workers. These figures describe the federal floor. Where state or local rates are higher, the affected group shifts with them, and the age profile of exposure changes accordingly.

Women are also overrepresented. Women are more likely to have low-wage jobs than men. In the 2023 BLS tables, women were about half of hourly paid workers but roughly 69 percent of those at or below the federal minimum. A 2014 Pew Research snapshot found that mostly (77%) white; nearly half are white women, which reflects the large size of the white workforce rather than a higher exposure rate. Racial and regional patterns of exposure differ more sharply than these national totals suggest, because local wage distributions and the gap between local medians and the floor vary widely across states and metropolitan areas.

Spillovers and wage compression

A binding floor does not only affect workers paid exactly at the minimum. A higher minimum wage can increase wages for workers who would otherwise earn slightly more than the new minimum, for example when employers want to preserve pay differentials. This is the mechanism behind wage compression, in which the distribution narrows from below. Research on U.S. state-border comparisons by Dube, Lester and Reich found that spillovers account for close to 70% of the average wage increase experienced by workers in their sample. A study of U.S. local minimum wages reported a similar pattern, finding that the bottom of the wage distribution rose and inequality among low-wage workers was compressed, though the wage increase at the bottom was smaller than the increase in the local minimum itself.

Household position and poverty reach

Whether a minimum wage reaches poor households is a separate question from whether it reaches low-wage workers. Many low-wage earners do not live in poor families. In a 2014 CBO analysis of one federal proposal, just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold. The CBO's more recent analysis of a $15 federal rate estimated that it would move 0.9 million people out of poverty in 2025, on average. The same body has also noted that the affected workers are concentrated among households in the lowest one-fifth of the income distribution, which indicates that the poverty effect and the earnings effect point in different directions.

Some conservative analyses stress the opposite side of this picture. A Heritage Foundation report argued that minimum-wage earners are not much more likely to live in poverty than are most other Americans: Less than one in four live in a family with earnings below the poverty line. Such figures depend on how household income is defined, on the family-size adjustment used for poverty thresholds, and on the year of the data. The disagreement is therefore partly methodological and partly about what the policy is meant to achieve, which is why the targeting question remains contested.

Setting the rate: indexing, regional variation and subminimum rules

Benchmarks for the rate

A floor is often judged by its position relative to the middle of the earnings distribution. The Kaitz index, introduced in 1970 and named after Hyman Kaitz, expresses the statutory minimum as a fraction of the median wage. The same dollar amount can therefore carry very different weight in different labour markets. Using a Mississippi median of $16.86, a $7.25 floor sits near 0.43 of typical pay, while a $15 floor would reach about 0.89. In North Dakota, where the median is $22.58, the same $15 floor would move the ratio only from 0.32 to 0.66 (In Mississippi, for example, the current minimum wage is $7.25, while the current median wage is $16.86. Thus, an increase of the minimum wage to $15 would move the Mississippi Kaitz index from 0.43 to 0.89.).

Cross-national comparisons use the same ratio. In the OECD's data, the unweighted average across 30 countries with a statutory floor reached 54 per cent of the median, up from 48 per cent in 2005 (the average (unweighted) minimum wage equates to 54% of the median wage, up from 48% in 2005). Some advocates and researchers cite a rough heuristic of about 60 per cent of the median, but this is a rule of thumb rather than an empirically settled optimum. Living-wage calculations take a different route, estimating the hourly income a single adult or a family needs for a basic standard of living in a given place, and then comparing that figure with the floor.

Automatic indexing versus legislated increases

Some jurisdictions link the rate to prices automatically. In 2026, Montana's lowest-in-group rate of $10.85 followed an inflation adjustment mandated by state law, and Minnesota and South Dakota likewise moved courtesy of inflation adjustments. Other places rely on discretionary steps or pre-set schedules. New Jersey's rate follows an annual adjustment, and Florida's path to $15 came from a constitutional amendment that raised the state's minimum wage by $1 every year until it reaches $15 in 2026.

The trade-off is between predictability and responsiveness. Automatic indexing gives employers and workers advance notice and removes the need for repeated legislative fights, so the real value of the floor is less likely to erode. Its weakness is that consumer-price indices track prices, not wages. When median pay grows faster than prices, an index-linked floor can fall further behind the labour market, and a formula cannot pause in a downturn the way a legislature might. Discretionary increases can respond to labour-market conditions, but they can also leave long gaps in which inflation erodes the floor, as happened with the federal rate after 2009.

Regional differentials and local rates

Geographic variation now operates at several levels. New York sets $17 an hour in New York City, Long Island and Westchester; $16 for the remainder of the state, and Oregon uses separate tiers for its standard areas, the Portland metro area and non-urban counties. Cities add another layer: in 2026 some municipalities set rates well above their states, with examples such as El Cerrito, California, at $18.82 (El Cerrito, California · $18.82).

Local rates do not map neatly onto the Kaitz ratio. One study of city-level floors found that cities of Los Altos and Palo Alto in the Bay Area have a Kaitz index of only 0.33—which is lower than the current Kaitz index of the federal minimum wage of 0.37. The same study reports that the Kaitz index exceeds 0.65 in a substantial portion of cities, a range that state floors rarely reach. High nominal rates can thus coexist with modest relative bite where local incomes are also high.

Supporters of differentiated rates argue that a single national or state figure binds hardest where living costs and wages are lowest. Opponents raise concerns about compliance complexity for multi-site employers, cross-border competition for workers and consumers, and the risk that a patchwork of rules penalises employers in neighbouring jurisdictions.

Youth, training and tipped subminimums

Federal law permits several subminimum categories. Under the FLSA's youth provision, workers under 20 may be paid a lower opportunity wage during their first 90 consecutive calendar days in a job. Proponents argue that such rates lower the cost of a first job and help young people acquire work experience and skills that raise their later earnings. Critics respond that the rate can encourage employers to replace adult workers with trainees, and that the training label is hard to verify.

Tipped workers are the most significant subminimum group. The 1996 FLSA amendments set the employer's statutory minimum cash wage at $2.13 per hour (rather than a percentage of the minimum wage) and the size of the tip credit became dependent on the value of the minimum wage. The maximum tip credit is therefore $5.12, the gap between $7.25 and $2.13. Tips must make up the difference, and employers must make up any shortfall between an employee's cash wage plus tips and the applicable minimum wage within the same pay period, not averaged over time or corrected later. Coverage varies by state: seven states—Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington—do not allow a tip credit, while 26 states and the District of Columbia require a minimum employer cash wage that is greater than the federal rate of $2.13 per hour.

The case for the tip credit rests on the claim that customer tips add substantial income and that the arrangement suits restaurant economics. Worker advocates counter that the $2.13 rate has stayed flat for decades, that take-home pay fluctuates with customers and seasons, and that some tipped workers are assigned non-tipped duties while still paid the lower cash wage.

International systems and comparative practice

The United Kingdom introduced its National Minimum Wage in 1999, with rates recommended each year by an independent body, the Low Pay Commission, and accepted by the government. In 2016 a higher National Living Wage was added for older workers, originally those aged 25 and over. The age threshold has since been lowered to 21, which is the band that now carries the adult rate. From 1 April 2026 the National Living Wage is £12.71 an hour, a 4.1% rise from £12.21. The 18–20 band rose to £10.85, while under-18s and most apprentices receive £8.00. The government has said it intends to narrow the gap between the age bands over time, eventually moving toward a single adult rate. The UK also has a voluntary Real Living Wage, calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, which many employers pay above the statutory floor. The rate for April 2027 had not been confirmed when this section was prepared; the Low Pay Commission was asked to report by October 2026.

Germany's statutory minimum wage took effect in January 2015 under the Minimum Wage Act (MiLoG), after a long political dispute over whether a national floor was needed at all. Its level is no longer fixed by parliament in each case. A permanent, independent Mindestlohnkommission reviews the rate every two years under the act, and the federal cabinet then gives effect to its recommendation by ordinance. The commission has seven voting members: a chair, three representatives of trade unions and three of employers, together with non-voting academic members. Its decisions are not always unanimous; in 2020 the union side objected to a rise that the chair and employers supported. The rate was €8.50 at the outset and reached €12.41 in 2024 and €12.82 in 2025. The commission's 2025 recommendation, a two-step rise, took the rate to €13.90 from 1 January 2026 and €14.60 from 1 January 2027. The German system has also been shaped by external rules. An EU directive adopted in late 2022 asks member states to aim for minimum wages that reach at least 60% of the median wage, and Germany's earnings threshold for low-paid "mini-jobs" is tied to the statutory rate. In 2022 the government raised the rate to €12 by political decision outside the commission's normal cycle, which shows that the independent process has coexisted with direct intervention.

France's SMIC (Salaire Minimum Interprofessionnel de Croissance) has been indexed to prices and wages since its creation in 1970. The mechanism is partly automatic. Under the Labour Code, the rate rises whenever consumer prices for the lowest-earning 20% of households have increased by at least 2% since the last adjustment. A second component follows the growth in the basic hourly wage of manual and non-manual workers, so the floor tracks both purchasing power and general earnings. The government may also grant discretionary top-ups, known as coups de pouce, which are optional rather than required. In 2026 the rate was €12.02 gross an hour from 1 January, a rise of about 1.2%. It then increased automatically to €12.31 from 1 June after prices for low-income households rose by more than 2% (about 2.4% in the adjustment), producing a monthly gross figure of €1,867.02 for a 35-hour week. Mayotte has a separate, lower rate. Reduced rates apply to some young workers and apprentices, and sectoral collective agreements (conventions collectives) may set higher minimum pay for particular occupations, with the SMIC serving as the legal floor beneath them.

Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland do not have a statutory national minimum wage. Pay floors are set mainly through sectoral collective agreements negotiated between trade unions and employers' associations, and coverage of these agreements is high in all four countries. Denmark and Sweden rely largely on bargaining and on the enforcement capacity of unions, which can use industrial action against employers who do not sign agreements, rather than on a government-set rate. Norway uses a legal mechanism to extend sector agreements to all employers in certain industries, where it applies to workers in the same occupations regardless of membership. Finland's agreements are usually negotiated at sector level and are often extended to cover the whole field. Because these systems do not provide a single legal rate, cross-country comparison is difficult: the level of protection depends on the scope of each agreement and on the strength of the social partners, not only on the number printed in a statute.

United States: federal and state situation in 2026

The federal floor under the Fair Labor Standards Act has been fixed at $7.25 since 24 July 2009, when the last step of a three-stage increase passed in 2007 took effect. The gap is now the longest in the law's history. The current gap, from 2009 to 2026, is by far the longest in the law's history at over 16 years, more than four times the historical average. Because the federal rate has no automatic adjustment, its real value has eroded. Unlike Social Security benefits, which rise automatically through the annual COLA, the federal minimum wage has no built-in inflation adjustment. One estimate puts the loss at about a third of its 2009 purchasing power after inflation.

Because the federal rate has stood still, states and localities now set most of the effective floors. On 1 January 2026, 19 states raised their minimum wages, and three more states and the District of Columbia are scheduled to implement increases later this year. The highest state rate is in Washington, at $17.13, while the District of Columbia's $18.40 is higher still. One outlet gave Washington's figure as $17.33, but the other sources give $17.13. A milestone reached in 2026 is that for the first time, there will be more workers in states with a minimum wage of $15 an hour or higher than those with the federal minimum of $7.25.

The count of states at or near the federal level depends on how one counts. The payroll firm ADP reports that 20 states do not have a minimum wage above the federal level, and Axios similarly notes that 20 states, mostly in the South, still use the $7.25 an hour rate. In a 2024 count, there is no state minimum wage in five of these states – Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee – and in Georgia and Wyoming, the state minimum wage is just $5.15, so the federal $7.25 minimum wage applies. Those lists are older than the 2026 data, so the exact figures should be checked against current state labour department sources.

Several scheduled increases shape the 2026 picture. Florida's rate is the clearest example. Voters approved a 2020 constitutional amendment, and on September 30, 2026, Florida's minimum wage will increase to $15.00 per hour. The amendment was approved with about 60 percent support, and the tipped cash wage rises to $11.98 on September 30, 2026. Afterward, once the minimum wage rate reaches $15, it will then be adjusted annually for inflation. Other examples include Nebraska, where the sizable $1.50 increase bringing Nebraska's minimum wage to $15 in 2026 stems from a 2022 minimum wage ballot measure. Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia adjust mid-year, and Hawaii's rate of $16 per hour in calendar year 2026 will rise again to $17 on 1 January 2027.

The map is fragmented because the rules come from several channels at once. Some rates are set by ballot initiative, as in Florida and Nebraska. Others come from legislation, such as Hawaii's scheduled increases, while many states index their rates to a price measure. Every year, the month of January sees several minimum wage increases as state-mandated automatic cost-of-living increases kick in. The indexing measures differ: Connecticut's rate is tied to the employment cost index rather than a consumer price index, and in New Jersey, seasonal employers and those with fewer than six employees aren't tied to that index. Local ordinances add a further layer. At least 38 California cities have a minimum wage higher than the state minimum. Counting local jurisdictions, one advocacy group reports that on January 1, 2026, the minimum wage will increase in 19 states and 49 cities and counties. Another count gives 47 localities, so the totals vary by source and by the date of the count.

Enforcement and compliance

In the United States, the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is the main federal enforcer. It investigates FLSA complaints and may order fines, payment of back wages, job reinstatement, and other remedies, including changes that bring the employer into compliance with the law. Investigators conduct investigations and gather data on wages, hours worked and other employment conditions or practices to determine whether an employer complies. Where they find violations, they usually request the payment of any back wages due to employees. Other countries use different bodies. In the United Kingdom, HM Revenue and Customs handles most National Minimum Wage cases, and employment tribunals resolve individual claims.

Federal law gives workers two routes. Employees may (1) file a complaint with WHD or (2) bring a private civil action against an employer for violations. Remedies differ by route. Based on the results of an investigation, WHD may order an employer to provide payment of back wages and liquidated damages to affected employees, and may assess civil money penalties for repeat or willful violations. Civil penalties for willful or repeated violations are, according to the DOL, up to $1,000 for each such violation, and the amount is subject to inflation adjustment over time. Willful violations can also be prosecuted criminally. Private litigation is often the larger channel in practice. Workers may bring collective actions with co-workers, and courts can award back pay plus an equal amount in liquidated damages under the FLSA's standard remedy.

Wage theft takes several forms that are hard to detect from payroll records. Off-the-clock work, where employees perform unpaid tasks before a shift or after clocking out, is a common example. Unpaid time and unlawful deductions from pay are among the leading causes of underpayment that UK enforcers record, each occurring in more than one in three cases. Misclassifying employees as independent contractors is another route. Because contractors fall outside minimum wage coverage, a misclassified worker may lose the floor entirely, so courts and agencies apply economic-reality tests to decide who is an employee.

Tipped work adds specific compliance duties. Under the federal rules, employers must provide the following information to tipped employees before taking a tip credit under the FLSA, including the cash wage paid and the maximum tip credit claimed. The employer must also ensure that tipped employees receive at least the federal minimum wage when direct (or cash) wages and the tip credit amount are combined. Tip pools add further limits. A mandatory pool for an employer that takes a tip credit may include only workers who customarily and regularly receive tips, and managers and supervisors may not receive or keep employees' tips, including from a tip pool. Employers therefore have to track, for each shift, the tips each worker receives, the contributions to and distributions from the pool, and hours spent in tipped and non-tipped duties. The employer must also show that total compensation met the floor in every workweek, which is the central burden of the tip credit system. Recordkeeping is required even for employers that take no tip credit: the records must be open for inspection by the Wage and Hour Division's representatives, and FLSA records must be kept for at least three years.

Measuring compliance is difficult, and estimates vary with the data used. Non-compliance is most common among small businesses. The UK's Low Pay Commission reports that there is a higher rate of underpayment in micro-level firms than in larger employers. A UK analysis of administrative data found that over time around one in three workers who were underpaid in a given year were still underpaid in the following year. In the United States, an analysis using the Current Population Survey estimated that measured underpayment after minimum wage increases average between 14 and 22 percent of realized wage gains. The authors read this as meaning that compliance is the norm, but that avoidance and evasion are nontrivial. Survey-based estimates are subject to self-reporting error, and advocacy-group figures on wage theft use different methods, so the magnitudes remain contested. Monitoring small employers, franchised outlets and informal work is costly, and detection is often rare. That gap between legal coverage and actual payment is why enforcement design matters as much as the statutory rate itself.

Interaction with taxes, transfers and other labour policies

Wage floors and wage subsidies

A statutory floor and the earned income tax credit (EITC) both reach many of the same low-paid workers, but they act through different channels. The floor sets a minimum price for each hour worked, while the credit depends on earnings and family structure. Supporters of pairing them argue that a high enough floor blocks employers from cutting pay to capture part of the credit, so the subsidy stays with the worker. The EITC aims to supplement workers' earnings, but risks being diluted if low-wage employers react to it by reducing wages. However, a sufficiently high minimum wage can prevent this dilution. Critics of the floor instead point out that there is little evidence that higher minimum wages alone reduce poverty or dependence on government programs. The earned income tax credit targets low-income families much better.

The two instruments also differ in who they reach. EITCs primarily target low-income families with children, while the minimum wage targets the very lowest-wage workers regardless of factors like total family income, family status, or age. Estimates of combined effects vary by group. A 2011 study by Neumark and Wascher found that a higher floor strengthens the employment gains that the EITC produces for single mothers, but for some poorly educated childless workers the two policies together may reduce employment and earnings. Other work finds the EITC raises employment among young women, while floor-related job losses concentrate among young minority men.

Phase-outs, marginal tax rates and transfers

Whether a wage increase raises a household's resources depends on what it does to taxes and benefits. The pass-through of higher minimum wages to after-tax incomes depends on the marginal tax rate faced by low-skilled workers. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that effective marginal tax rates among low- and moderate-income workers are about 30 percent, on average, with about one-third of that rate stemming from the federal income tax, more than a third from federal payroll taxes, with the rest coming from state taxes and benefit phase-outs. Phase-outs can push these rates much higher at particular income levels. One analysis of full-time workers moving toward $12 and $15 floors projected marginal tax rates increasing to as much as 60 percent. A microsimulation for Washington, D.C. likewise found that most affected workers would lose some EITC after a wage increase, though their net gain remained positive. Historically, the interaction was sharper: a 1997 law review article noted that pre-1996 cash assistance and food stamps, combined with taxes, could leave poor families facing the highest marginal tax rates of any taxpayers, sometimes exceeding 100 percent.

Analysts also disagree about whether the floor should be understood as a transfer in its own right. One 1997 analysis described it as economically equivalent to a wage subsidy to low-wage employees, financed by a tax on low-wage employers. Low-wage workers also bear relatively heavy payroll taxes. Because the median tax base in 2009 was only $10,000 for unemployment insurance, low-wage workers face higher effective tax rates. Since payroll taxes are levied on earnings rather than hourly rates, a floor that raises the cost of each hour adds to employer costs in a way that depends on hours worked.

Collective bargaining and sectoral pay setting

In many countries, statutory floors coexist with collective agreements, and in some they are absent. The ILO reports that only 10 per cent of countries with a minimum wage rely exclusively on collective bargaining. In practice, many of these countries are Nordic European countries. In Denmark, Finland and Sweden, more than 90% of workers are covered by one of the sectorally agreed minimum wages. Where a statute exists alongside bargaining, the two interact. In France, an increase in the national minimum wage leads to an increase in negotiated industry-level wage floors, which firms then use as references for their wage policy. The statutory floor still binds in many sectors: one study found the SMIC above the lowest sectoral floor in about half of sectors in 2007. In coordinated systems, statutory minimum wages often play a weaker role, as sectoral agreements already establish wage floors.

Extended collective agreements offer a similar comparison. Their wage floors tend to bind only a narrow group of workers, since the mean cushion is between 20 and 50 percentage points, meaning most earnings sit well above the floor. Bargaining more broadly is associated with higher average wages and lower inequality, though it can reduce flexibility. In the United States, a comparable route was used when the New York Labor Commissioner used their authority under the state's long-standing wage board statute to convene a wage board for the fast food industry, resulting in a new $15 minimum wage covering fast food workers statewide.

Hiring, payroll costs and automation

Employers compare the full cost of a worker with the value of that worker's output, not the wage alone. A higher floor therefore raises total labour cost through payroll taxes and fixed per-worker costs such as benefits, which can encourage firms to adjust hours, shift schedules, or staffing patterns instead of headcount alone. Some firms may also respond by investing in capital that substitutes for low-skilled labour, though the empirical evidence on automation specifically remains thin and largely indirect; the magnitude of this channel is among the less settled questions in the field.

Debates and open questions

The optimal level and the single-rate problem

Whether a floor is too high depends partly on what counts as a cost and whose losses matter most. A national figure that suits a high-cost metropolis can bind hard in a low-cost rural county, which is why disputes often turn on whether one uniform rate can serve both. Advocates of local rates point to differences in productivity, rents and industry mix. Critics answer that a patchwork of thresholds raises compliance costs and gives employers an incentive to move across boundaries. The national benchmark is static: the federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 an hour since 2009, so much of the argument now concerns the widening gap between federal, state and city floors, and the labour-market conditions beneath them.

Which workers absorb the effects

The youth question remains the most contested. Early studies that used only national variation in the U.S. minimum wage found elasticities between −0.1 and −0.3 for teens aged 16–19. Later state-based designs with more careful comparison groups still tend to report negative estimates for teenagers, in the range of −0.1 to −0.2, and smaller elasticities for restaurant workers. A related question concerns the entry margin rather than layoffs. One simulation attributes a substantial share of the decline in teenagers working while attending school to higher floors, with minimum-wage increases accounting for 21% of the drop in that group. If the main effect is fewer young people starting work, measured unemployment and employment counts for incumbent workers may understate the cost. This is a direct test of how the policy interacts with human-capital accumulation.

The competitive and concentrated-market cases also yield different predictions. A study using personnel data from a large retailer found that overall employment effects of the 1996 federal increase were negative but statistically insignificant, while increases in the relative wages of teenagers led to significant increases in the relative employment of teenagers. The author read this as a pattern consistent with noncompetitive models. Whether such patterns generalise beyond large firms with some market-power is unresolved, and the sources differ on how common that situation is in low-wage labour markets.

Automation, platforms and cross-border work

Automation is a second open channel. Lordan and Neumark find that increasing the minimum wage decreases significantly the share of automatable employment held by low-skilled workers, with the largest effects being felt in manufacturing and by older, females and Black workers. They also suggest that the net disemployment effects may be smaller than the gross effects, because displaced workers can move into complementary tasks. A UK study reports that a stronger effect over the last decade and a half is roughly double in size, which implies that the interaction between floors and automation may be accelerating. Whether this trend continues as technology cheapens is an open empirical question.

Coverage is a further limit. Many platform firms classify their workers as independent contractors, and as a result, platform workers are not entitled to the minimum wage. In Texas, a 2019 administrative change exempted platform companies from unemployment regulations, effectively classifying all platform workers as independent contractors. The reach of a floor therefore depends on law governing classification as much as on its level. A statute anchored to a jurisdiction and a workplace also raises unsettled questions about remote work performed abroad for a domestic employer, questions that legislation written for local premises does not clearly answer.

Methodological disputes and the state of the evidence

The natural-experiment literature has not converged on a single magnitude. Studies that compare neighbouring areas often report estimates close to zero, while others find modest disemployment effects. The San Francisco Fed notes that recent exceptions that find no employment effects typically use a particular version of estimation methods with close geographic controls that may obscure job losses. Staggered adoption also complicates difference-in-differences designs: one analysis groups states by when they first raised their minimum wage above the federal level, and the timing of such decisions may be correlated with the business cycle. A survey of the literature notes that states may be more likely to increase them during good economic times, which makes the policy variable endogenous.

Meta-analysis offers a different summary. A 2024 study compiling 72 studies published in academic journals reports a median employment-to-wage ratio of −0.13, which implies that only about 13% of the potential wage gains generated by a minimum wage increase are offset by the associated job loss. Meta-regression exercises also raise publication-bias concerns; one analysis of 1,474 estimated minimum-wage elasticities finds clear indication of publication selection in the older time-series estimates. Surveys reach a qualified conclusion: the majority of studies, but not all, find dis-employment effects that are concentrated among teenagers and those with low levels of education. The open questions therefore concern how far these magnitudes transfer across periods and places, and how to weigh econometric choices against each other.

References

1. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): An Overviewcongress.gov
2. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Exemption for Executive, Administrative, and Professional (EAP) Employeescongress.gov
3. Fact Sheet #17A: Exemption for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer & Outside Sales Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)dol.gov
4. eCFR :: 29 CFR Part 541 -- Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer and Outside Sales Employeesecfr.gov
5. elaws - Fair Labor Standards Act Advisorwebapps.dol.gov
6. Who is Covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act?nolo.com
7. The Fair Labor Standards Act & Employees' Legal Rightsjustia.com
8. Minimum Wage for Tipped Employees: Employer Guide (2026)rippling.com
9. Minimum Wage for Tipped Employees: 2026 Guidefirsthr.app
10. Can You Pay That?! Federal and State Tipped Minimum Wage Rates for 2026patriotsoftware.com
11. Tip Credit Laws by State 2026: Cash Wage Floors, One Fair Wage & Compliance Modelssymmetry.com
12. Statute of Labourers 1351 - WikiMili, The Best Wikipedia Readerwikimili.com
13. Statute of Labourers 1351: England's Failed Wage Lawhistoriesandcastles.com
14. Today in legislative history: Ordinance of Labourers passed to stop plebs bettering wages/conditions, 1349.pasttense.co.uk
15. Economic History Working Papers No: 360lse.ac.uk
16. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS ROYAL MEEKER, Commissionerfraser.stlouisfed.org
17. The political economy of minimum wage setting: The Factories and Shops Act of Victoria (Australia), 1896–1913 - Seltzer - 2025 - The Economic History Review - Wiley Online Libraryonlinelibrary.wiley.com
18. Minimum wage lawen.wikipedia.org
19. Minimum wageen.wikipedia.org
20. 1.3. A short historyilo.org
21. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 - Social Welfare History Projectsocialwelfare.library.vcu.edu
22. A struggle for fair labor standardsprofessionalroofing.net
23. History of Minimum Wage Lawstbowleslaw.com
24. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938smallbusiness.chron.com
25. Labourers, statute ofencyclopedia.com
26. Statute of Labourers Actspartacus-educational.com
27. Statute of Labourers 1351en.wikipedia.org
28. History of the minimum wageen.wikipedia.org
29. History of the Minimum Wageencyclopedia.pub
30. A Test for Treatment Heterogeneity under a Distributional Difference-in-Difference Frameworkarxiv.org
31. A joint test of unconfoundedness and common trendsarxiv.org
32. Labour by Design: Contributions of David Card, Joshua Angrist, and Guido Imbensarxiv.org
33. Replication of Card and Krueger (1994) using the CIC ...mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
34. THE EFFECT OF MINIMUM WAGES ON LOW-WAGE JOBS∗ DORUK CENGIZ ARINDRAJIT DUBErussellsage.org
35. The Effect of Minimum Wages on Low-Wage Jobs: Evidence from the United States Using a Bunching Estimator by Doruk Cengiz, Arindrajit Dube, Attila Lindner, Ben Zipperer :: SSRNssrn.com
36. Minimum Wage Pass-through to Wholesale and Retail Prices: Evidence from Cannabis Scanner Dataarxiv.org
37. The Pass-Through of Minimum Wages into US Retail Prices: Evidence from Supermarket Scanner Dataresearchgate.net
38. Are-Local-Minimum-Wages-Absorbed-by-Price-Increases.pdfirle.berkeley.edu
39. Wages, Minimum Wages, and Price Pass-Through:gceps.princeton.edu
40. (PDF) Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvaniaresearchgate.net
41. Minimum Wage and Real Wage Inequality: Evidence from Pass-Through to Retail Pricesresearchgate.net
42. NBER WORKING PAPER SERIESnber.org
43. Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2023 : BLS Reports : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statisticsbls.gov
44. $15 Option $12 Option $10 Option Current Law Federal Minimum Wagecbo.gov
45. Who makes minimum wage?pewresearch.org
46. Minimum Wage Shocks, Employment Flows, and Labor Market Frictionsresearchgate.net
47. FEBRUARY 2014 The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment andcbo.gov
48. Here's How Raising the Minimum Wage Would Affect Everything from Household Incomes to the National Debtpgpf.org
49. The Minimum Wagecbpp.org
50. Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents |heritage.org
51. The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Incomecbo.gov
52. Minimum Wage Shocks, Employment Flows and Labor Market Frictionsescholarship.org
53. NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES CITY LIMITS: WHAT DO LOCAL-AREA MINIMUM WAGES DO?nber.org
54. The Employment Effect of an Increase in the National ...kansascityfed.org
55. OECD policy brief argues there is room to raise minimum wagestuac.org
56. Minimum wage increases hit 19 states in 2026hrdive.com
57. US Minimum Wage Hike 2026: Here's the Complete State-by-State List - Govtschemes.orggovtschemes.org
58. Minimum wage rises in 19 states starting New Year's Day 2026foxbusiness.com
59. Your Guide to 2026 Minimum Wagessbshrs.adpinfo.com
60. CITY LIMITS: WHAT DO LOCAL-AREA MINIMUM WAGES DO? Arindrajit Dubenber.org
61. Tip Credit and Tip Pooling Provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Actcongress.gov
62. 2026 & 2027 Minimum Wage by State: Employer’s Guideonpay.com
63. US Minimum Wage Rates increases 2026-27: Full State-by-State List, New Rates & What Workers Should Know - Govtschemes.orggovtschemes.org
64. Federal Register :: Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); Partial Withdrawalfederalregister.gov
65. The Tipped Minimum Wage Has Been $2.13 Since 1991. That’s Too Damn Long!cepr.net
66. Customer Tips Are Providing the Lion’s Share of Wages to Tipped Workerscepr.net
67. Tipped wageen.wikipedia.org
68. Kaitz indexen.wikipedia.org
69. 1 INFORMALITY AND MINIMUM WAGE IN PARAGUAY THE KAITZ INDEX Michael J. Pisanicadep.org.py
70. National living wage 2026: Employer obligations & pay ratesxero.com
71. National Living Wage and Minimum Wage Rates in the UK 2026ukpropertyaccountants.co.uk
72. Minimum Wage 2026 Rises to £12.71 from April as Pay Boost Kicks Inibtimes.co.uk
73. Minimum Wage 2026: £12.71 Rate & All UK Age Bandsyerty.co.uk
74. April 2026 Rate Changes: Rounduptheemploymentlawsolicitors.co.uk
75. Minimum Wage 2026 UK: National Living Wage Rates by Agerecordinglaw.com
76. Mindestlohn 2026: Das Wichtigste, was Du dazu wissen musstverdi.de
77. Gesetzlicher Auftrag - Mindestlohnkommissionmindestlohn-kommission.de
78. Evolution of the minimum wage - Mindestlohnkommissionmindestlohn-kommission.de
79. Fragen und Antworten zum Mindestlohn - Bundesregierung.debundesregierung.de
80. Gesetzlicher Mindestlohn 2026: Erhöhung auf 13,90 Euro beschlossenlohnsteuer-kompakt.de
81. Minimum wage in France (SMIC) in 2026: Rates & regulations - Connexion-Emploiconnexion-emploi.com
82. SMIC 2026 and working in France - Moving to Europerelocateineurope.com
83. Minimum Wage in France 2026: SMIC Rates and Employer Costs - HReacthreact.com
84. Minimum Wage History 1938–2026: Federal & State Ratesstatesminimumwage.com
85. Federal Minimum Wage Increases: Complete Timeline 1938-2026statesminimumwage.com
86. Minimum Wage Adjusted for Inflation: 1938 to Todayinflationcalculator.com
87. The 2026 State Minimum Wage Increases and Their Potential Costs and Consequences - AAFamericanactionforum.org
88. 2026 minimum wage: New Year's hikes are set for these 19 statesaxios.com
89. The Minimum Wage Increased in These 19 States on Jan. 1money.com
90. July 24 Marks 15 Years With Federal Minimum Wage Stuck at $7.25businessforafairminimumwage.org
91. Florida Minimum Wagefloridajobs.org
92. Florida’s Minimum Wage Reaches $15.00 on September 30, 2026lowndes-law.com
93. Florida Minimum Wage Guide for 2026employerpass.com
94. Minimum wage in Californiaen.wikipedia.org
95. RAISES FROM COAST TO COAST IN 2026nelp.org
96. Legislative lowdown: The minimum wage went up in 19 states on Jan. 1hr-brew.com
97. Florida Minimum Wage 2026: $15 Rate and Tipped Worker Rulesonpay.com
98. Florida Minimum Wage Increases Sept. 30volusiabusiness.org
99. Minimum Wage by State: Employers Guide for 2026rippling.com
100. 2026 State Minimum Wage Rates - GovDocsgovdocs.com
101. It has now been 15 years since the federal minimum wage rose to $7.25npr.org
102. Fair Labor Standards Act: Laws for Minimum Wage, Working Hours, and Other Protections - FindLawfindlaw.com
103. webapps.dol.govwebapps.dol.gov
104. elaws - Employment Law Guide - Minimum Wage and Overtime Paywebapps.dol.gov
105. Compliance and enforcement of the National Minimum Wage in 2024assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
106. Print Fact Sheetdol.gov
107. Frequently Asked Questionsdol.gov
108. Non-compliance and enforcement of the National Minimum Wage APRIL 2019assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
109. Evasion and Avoidance Responses to Minimum Wage ...nber.org
110. The Earned Income Tax Credit and the minimum wage work together to raise incomes and reduce povertyirle.berkeley.edu
111. Reducing Poverty via Minimum Wages, Alternatives - San Francisco Fedfrbsf.org
112. State Earned Income Tax Credits and Minimum Wages Work Best Togethercbpp.org
113. Minimum wage policy with optimal taxes and unemployment - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
114. Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low- and Moderate-Income Workerscbo.gov
115. The Minimum Wage and Means-Tested Benefits: Raising the Wage and Raising the Thresholdcrownschool.uchicago.edu
116. The University of Chicago Law Review Volume 64 Spring 1997 Number 2chicagounbound.uchicago.edu
117. Payroll Tax Incidence: Evidence from Unemployment Insurancearxiv.org
118. 3.2 Minimum wages through collective bargainingilo.org
119. Richard Dickens University of Sussex, and the Low Pay Commission, UK, and IZA,wol.iza.org
120. The effect of minimum wage on wage bargaining at the industry level: Evidence from Francecepr.org
121. Wage-Setting Institutions and Wagemdpi.com
122. World of Labour - Employment and wage effects of extending collective bargaining agreementswol.iza.org
123. Sectoral bargaining FAQ Collective bargaining, sectoral wage andfiles.epi.org
124. Does a Higher Minimum Wage Enhance the Effectiveness of The Earned Income Tax Credit?nber.org
125. World of Labour - The minimum wage versus the earned income tax credit for reducing povertywol.iza.org
126. $15 Minimum Wage and the Earned Income Tax Credit: Public Policy Interactionsora-cfo.dc.gov
127. Collective Bargaining, Unions, and the Wage Structure: Aneconomics.mit.edu
128. Minimum Wage Increases May Explain Decline in Teen Employmentjournalistsresource.org
129. The Effects of Minimum Wages on Employment - San Francisco Fedfrbsf.org
130. Minimum Wage Effects on Employment, Substitution, and the Teenage Labor Supply: Evidence from Personnel Datajournals.uchicago.edu
131. People versus machines: The impact of minimum wages on automatable jobs - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
132. People versus Machines: The Impact of Minimum Wages on Automatable Jobscato.org
133. People versus machines in the UK: Minimum wages, labor reallocation and automatable jobsncbi.nlm.nih.gov
134. The Gig Trap: Algorithmic, Wage and Labor Exploitation in Platform Work in the UShrw.org
135. Omitted Variable Bias in Difference-in-Differences Designsarxiv.org
136. Cluster-Robust Inference: A Guide to Empirical Practicearxiv.org
137. Integrated analysis of informality, minimum wage, and monopsony power: A synthesis of meta-analyses with unified theoretical underpinningsarxiv.org
138. Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysisctdol.state.ct.us
139. World of Labour - The effects of minimum wages on youth employment and incomewol.iza.org