He tries to offer a balanced view.
The federal minimum did not change from 1981 to 1990, causing its inflation-adjusted value to fall 30 percent during that time. Wages in the bottom of the income distribution fell sharply, even more sharply than they have in the last decade. The inflation-adjusted wage of a worker at the 20th percentile of the distribution dropped 9.5 percent from 1981 to 1990, according an analysis of government data in the forthcoming book “The State of Working America, 12th Edition,” by the Economic Policy Institute.
…Since 1990, though, the minimum wage has risen. If you’re trying to understand why every income group except for the affluent has taken an income cut over the last decade, you probably shouldn’t put the minimum wage at the top of your list of causes.
And if you are trying to guess which NYT columnist wrote this, you probably shouldn’t put Paul Krugman on your list of possible authors. Cross off Tyler Cowen, also, although he did link to the column.
Try David Leonhardt.
It should be combined with this column by David Neumark (that Tyler Cowen also linked to) pointing out that the decline in the minimum wage coincides with the increase in the EITC. If you look at “minimum wage plus EITC for a minimum wage recipient,” the number is much more stable. Though EITC doesn’t go to teenage children of middle class families, which is a feature, not a bug.
The EITC, plus SNAP.
I don’t trust writers who cite either the Economic Policy Institute or the Heritage Foundation. Their biases (left and right, respectively) are just too strong, and writers who cannot find better sources are not doing their job.
What is missing from the discussion is that the intersection of “the poor” and “minimum wage earners” is very small indeed. I understand those who wish to raise the minimum wage for a vague idea of justice (I disagree, but I understand them). I do not understand those who argue raising it to fight poverty. It’s a non sequitur.