This study re-examines Dube (2019), which finds large and statistically significant poverty-reducing effects of the minimum wage. We show that his estimated elasticities are fragile and sensitive to (1) time period under study, (2) choice of macroeconomic controls, (3) limiting counterfactuals to geographically proximate states (“close controls”), which poorly match treatment states' pre-treatment poverty trends, and (4) accounting for potential bias caused by heterogeneous and dynamic treatment effects. Using data spanning nearly four decades from the March Current Population Survey and a dynamic difference-in-differences (DiD) approach, we find that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a (statistically insignificant) 0.17 percent increase in the probability of longer-run poverty among all persons. With 95% confidence, we can rule out long-run poverty elasticities with respect to the minimum wage of less than -0.129. Our null results persist across a variety of DiD estimation strategies, including two-way fixed effects, stacked DiD, Callaway and Sant'Anna, and synthetic DiD. We conclude that, to date, the preponderance of evidence suggests that minimum wage increases are an ineffective policy strategy for alleviating poverty.

In volume 94 of this REVIEW, Adams, Blackburn, and Cotti (ABC), using Fatal Accident Reporting System data from 1998 to 2006, find that a 10% increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 7% to 11% increase in alcohol-related fatal traffic accidents involving teen drivers. We find this result does not hold when the analysis period is expanded to include 1991 through 2013. In addition, auxiliary analyses provide no support for income-driven increases in alcohol consumption, the primary mechanism posited by ABC. Together, our results suggest that minimum wage increases are not a silent killer.

This study is the first to estimate the effect of war service in the Global War on Terrorism on domestic violence. We exploit a natural experiment in overseas deployment assignment among active-duty servicemen by relying on theoretical and empirical evidence that, conditional on military rank and occupation, deployment assignments are orthogonal to the propensity for violence. Our results show that assignment to combat substantially increases the probability of intimate partner violence and child abuse. Descriptive evidence suggests that the effects may be explained in part by the stress- and substance use–related consequences of war.