Talk:Minimum wage

Math in the Welfare and labor market participation section

I believe the line, "On the other hand, if 𝑤 ≥ 𝑤∗, any increases in the minimum wage entails a decline in labor market participation and an increase in unemployment," while it does follow from the mathematics in the original source (pages 797 and 798), is incorrect because it ignores the increased willingness to work and ability to attract more skilled, talented, driven, and efficient workers at higher wages.

In the textbook's search-and-matching model, workers are identical and do not become more productive when pay rises, so once the minimum wage exceeds the efficiency-level wage w*, the higher wage simply makes vacancies less profitable, firms post fewer of them, labor-market tightness and the job-finding rate fall, the value of unemployment drops, participation slips, unemployment climbs, and employment contracts; but this result does not hold in reality because higher wages attract abler and more motivated applicants, boost productivity, and cut turnover. Empirical studies that allow for such selection and efficiency-wage channels often find only small or zero employment losses, suggesting the net effect depends on how strongly those positive mechanisms offset firms' reduced vacancy creation. See for example, Dal Bó, et al. (2013) "Strengthening state capabilities: The role of financial incentives in the call to public service" Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(3): 1169–1218, on page 1171 and Dube, A. (2019) "Impacts of minimum wages: Review of the international evidence" London: HM Treasury, on pp. 2-3, e.g., "Overall the most up-to-date body of research from US, UK and other developed countries points to a very muted effect of minimum wages on employment...."

@Mersenne56, would you please comment? Cramulator (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I removed that final sentence. Cramulator (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Not cool

This article is a complete mess I'm not willing to immediately fix up. I add minor corrections and re framings where i can, but there is stuff like section on monopsony repeating in the criticism of supply and demand section, opinions of random economists from Averageville University, that paragraph about inelasticity of demand, that is later immediately refuted in the same paragraph, or top economists - forgive my arrogance - uninformed opinion that irrelevance of minimum wages may explain it's null empirical effects on employment. This is in contrast with the fact that it's common practice at least since Krueger and Card's 90s works to measure impact on wages together with impact on employment. And while i appreciate a section related to cambridge capital controversy anywhere, really, this is painfully irrelevant to the article, that someone considered a model "illogical". Like you can't, in every article that refers to a concept based on supply and demand, include a well developed paragraph about CCC, it's just redundant. If we really want it there, one reference is sufficient. Minimum wage is obviously a big topic in politics, while also having a massive field of economics dedicated to it, so i really would appreciate anyone with stronger willpower than me rewriting it. Zuzanna Roszkowska (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

NMW in the UK

The NMW in the UK has been £12.21 (for workers aged 21+) since 1st April 2025 (this will increase to £12.71 from 1st April 2026). Please can someone update this (I would but don't know how to update the reference retrieval date). Thanks. ~2025-40042-41 (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it was updated. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)