By the number of research papers published, the minimum wage is the most hotly debated topic in American labor economics. In 2015, over 20 states will increase their minimum wage to a level above the federal minimum wage. New Hampshire is one of 21 states to not have a minimum wage above the federal level. It also has the lowest minimum wage in New England and is one of the few states in history to pass legislation to remove its statewide minimum wage in 2011.

Reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, New Hampshire has 11,000 minimum wage workers, representing 3.0 percent of the state’s hourly paid workforce. Opponents of minimum wage proposals often point to the fact that New Hampshire has the lowest percent of minimum wage workers in New England and one of the lowest in the nation. Tennessee, Idaho and Alabama have over 6.8 percent of their state’s workforce making at or below minimum wage.

Minimum wages across the country.
Minimum wages across the country.

According to New Hampshire business and trade organizations, minimum wage workers are limited to trainees and disabled workers. However, thousands of workers get paid just above the minimum wage. Using data from the Current Population Survey, a minimum wage increase to $9.00 per hour would directly increase the salary of 47,500 New Hampshire workers, and an increase to $10.10 would increase the salary of almost 80,000 workers.

New Hampshire’s median wage is just above $17, and even though a small proportion of New Hampshire’s workforce is paid the minimum wage, almost twenty percent earn below $10 an hour. Take McDonald’s for example; McDonald’s workers in the Granite State have an average crew salary just above $8.50, which is not even a dollar higher than the averages seen in southern states like Alabama and Mississippi based off online salary reporting (from A minimum wage increase above $9 would have a large binding impact on the New Hampshire workforce.

On March 3rd, 2015, I sat before the New Hampshire Senate Finance Committee, testifying with the Dartmouth Policy Research Shop on an economic analysis report for minimum wage increases. Our objective report focused on the likely impacts on New Hampshire’s economy, businesses and citizens. Following our fifteen-minute testimony on SB 261, the floor was opened up to questions.

New Hampshire State House.
New Hampshire State House.

Senator Reagan (R-Deerfield) was the first to speak, and he immediately questioned, “if we dictate to a business that they are now going to have an increase expense in their wage line, where will that money come from?”

It was the classic colloquial minimum wage question. In reality, labor markets rarely behave like traditional competitive markets but have monopolistic characteristics and efficiency wage features. Our research focused on examining New Hampshire employment effects from minimum wage increases. Using data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, we examined the effect of minimum wage increases from New Hampshire’s contiguous county pairs – adjacent counties that straddle the state border — between 1990 and 2006. Controlling for population growth, we found no evidence that an increase in a state’s minimum wage led to a decrease in levels of employment.

Where did businesses get the money? Meta-analysis research (i.e.: studies that aggregate data from previous peer-reviewed research) has observed a net income increase following minimum wage increases. This increase in income for low wage workers leads to a fiscal multiplier effect, which boosts spending and consumption. Over the past forty years, literature has examined how higher wages increase worker retention and productivity, as workers earn enough to afford childcare and improved healthcare. And this increase in employee retention decreases the costs a business has to pay for labor turnover and training. Even though our research saw no negative employment effects in New Hampshire from previous minimum wage increases, some research has observed businesses raising prices or decreasing worker hours and fringe benefits.

Senator Reagan did not seem pleased. Before I could finish he was granted a follow up question.  “So can somebody answer my question, where are all these increased dollars going to come from to pay these employees, where is a business going to get the money to pay the increased wages?”

Disgruntled, I realized a macroeconomic answer was not going to work. The question was too rhetorical. Where do businesses get money to pay for taxes? Where do businesses get money to pay for an increase in property rental rates? I started to explain mathematically the very low elasticities observed with individual state minimum wage increases. Where by aggregating past research, a 10 percent increase in a state’s minimum wage frequently led to less than a 1 percent increase in prices and teen unemployment, or a 1 percent decrease in jobs or average hours worked.

Before I could continue, the senator interrupted me, “just get back to the question.” Thankfully the chairwoman of the committee stepped in to end the line of questioning, but I was puzzled by the Senator’s inability to recognize the flexibility of businesses’ cash flow. Economics is not a zero-sum game. There is no finite level of employment, income or production.

The University of New Hampshire estimates that the living wage in New Hampshire is around $9.68, the full time wage necessary for a single adult to meet basic needs of housing, food and transportation. New Hampshire’s minimum wage earners of $7.25 are largely non-teen (72 percent) and around 15 percent are parents. According to the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute, increasing the minimum wage to a level adequate the living wage would help thousands of families reach a “living wage.” And this boost in net income, according to the Economic Policy Institute, would decrease the poverty rate as well as state public welfare spending, which could reduce net government spending.

Even with the citizens’ interest in mind, state representatives must regard the academic literature before coming to conclusions on economic issues. Increasing the minimum wage is not a destructive macroeconomic toll on the state economy. It is time for the New Hampshire State Senate to not just have a minimal comprehension of the minimum wage.



Seattle’s 2015 introduction of a $15 minimum wage from what was previously $9.19 reignited a national debate over income inequality. For the first time in recent memory, full-time workers earning the legal minimum wage can rely on their wages alone to cover all their basic costs. Ingenuity is still needed, however, to make Seattle an inequality-squashing model for the rest of the country though the model looks promising.

In order for the minimum wage to cover the basic necessities for an average household, The Alliance For a Just Society, a liberal activist group, estimated it would need to be at $20 per hour. For a single adult, they estimated a number closer to $16 an hour although Seattle mayor Ed Murray approximated that the average Seattle worker would need $21 an hour. Even though the new $15 an hour is below both of these estimates, it’s a step in the right direction.

The Seattle City Council is hoping that the higher minimum wage will significantly improve quality of life. City officials implemented the hike hoping to prevent workers from needing to borrow to make ends meet. According to recent data comparing cities, Seattle’s residents had the second most average debt at $26,000. Over $6,500 of that was in credit card obligations. Proponents of the new wage increase argue that it should help ensure that debt isn’t a necessary part of a low-level worker’s life.

Behind Seattle’s wage increase is the broader allegation that companies that have traditionally refused to use allocate excess revenues to support their workers should be legally bound to do so. This larger political issue is perhaps most prevalent in the fast food sector. Fast food worker protests nationwide have demanded wage increases to $15 per hour. Even with McDonalds’ much-publicized wage bump to an average of $10 an hour, its workers will still turn to welfare, family and Mastercard to make ends meet.

There is legitimacy and practicality to the idea that large corporations should take responsibility instead of the government. According to the University of California Berkeley’s Labor Center, workers of large corporations like McDonalds cost taxpayers $153 billion annually in welfare to make up for their unlivable wages.


Among companies in the S&P 500, including McDonalds, 95 percent of earnings were rerouted to shareholders as dividends and share buybacks, according to Bloomberg. For McDonald’s alone, this will amount to over $18 billion spent on these gifts between 2014 and 2016. Rather than just paying these huge sums to investors, the company could pay its workers $15 an hour for less than half of this amount according to the 24/7 Wall Street Blog. While the job of publicly-held companies is to increase shareholder value, there is definitely enough cash to pay employees fairly. In an era where income growth is heavily slanted towards the wealthy, it seems only fair that some of that money should be rerouted to lower classes.

Even without reaching into its treasure trove of shareholder goodies, large corporations would see a fairly low impact from a $15 minimum wage. ABC News conveyed a report by Arnobio Maorelix, an undergraduate at the University of Kansas Business School, that estimated that McDonalds could absorb the wage increases with just a 17 percent increase in food prices. While Morelix’s analysis is probably a simple back-of-the-napkin calculation, the point remains that between a cutback on shareholder buybacks and a negligible increase in food prices, McDonalds could easily offer a $15 an hour wage nationwide.

While business models vary amongst companies in the S&P 500, they are likely similarly able to shoulder a $15 minimum wage. Together, S&P 500 employers account for over 15 percent of non-farm jobs according to Business Insider. This means that the initiative of a $15 minimum wage for just those companies could produce huge societal benefits. Costco, a member of the S&P 500 with over 150,000 employees, has proven that higher levels of compensation don’t have to necessarily harm a corporation’s bottom line. According to USA Today, Costco pays their average employee $21 per hour and has been commended by President Obama for its favorable wage.

While large companies that pay high shareholder incentives could probably shoulder a high minimum wage, the picture is not so clear for small business. Thanh Tan of The Seattle Times reported on small business owner Quynh-Vy Pham, who said that she frets about her company’s ability to keep up with the increased minimum wage. Pham, the owner of four Vietnamese restaurants in the Seattle area, said that she feels her business is threatened by the city’s wage hike. During the formulation of the law, an ethnic coalition of restaurant owners requested exemptions for businesses under ten employees, but were rebuffed. After the wage increase, it will no longer be possible for a hungry patron to walk into Pham’s Pho shop be able to pay for the entire bill with a ten dollar bill. By breaking the ten dollar price barrier, Pham and other casual restaurants worry that their products will be too expensive and consequently their business models will fail. With small businesses accounting for half of private sector jobs according to the Small Business Administration, the concerns of small businesses cannot be ignored.


In Oakland, where a $12.50 minimum wage was introduced in March 2015, small businesses have already suffered significant effects. Privately held restaurants in Oakland have been forced to raise prices as much as 20 percent just a month after the wage hike. A poll conducted by the Employment Policies Institute, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., surveyed 223 businesses in Oakland, virtually all of which had under 500 employees. It found that 56 percent of respondents considered the cost impact from the new minimum wage to be “large”, and 39 businesses said they would be forced to move out of the city. Using Oakland as a case study, an uptick in base wage seems to be impossible to handle for some smaller businesses, as opposed to their larger counterparts.

Some innovation is needed for a $15 minimum wage to be feasible nationwide for businesses of all sizes. First, the wage floor cannot punish small business. The rationale for a minimum wage is that it lifts up the working class, and this cannot be achieved if small businesses are simultaneously pummeled by cost increases that their business models can’t bear. While Seattle’s law sensibly delayed the burden of paying the full minimum wage on businesses with under five employees until as late as 2021, this is not enough. There should be a permanent exemption from the full minimum wage for companies under 500 employees. Squeezing these businesses undermines public support for a high minimum wage, particularly when large businesses are much better positioned to pay more. While small companies should pay employees enough to keep them above the poverty line, they should not be tied to a $15 minimum wage. The current $11 minimum in Seattle seems not to have hurt business too much, but the situation may worsen as the wage continues to rise.

Second, billing innovations should be emulated to better accommodate high wages. One of the companies that can afford a $15 wage is Ivar’s, a Washington-based company with over 1,000 employees. By eliminating tips and increasing menu prices, the company has been able to offer a $15 per hour wage while only increasing the overall bill to the customer by 4 percent. Such modifications should not only be adopted by any restaurant who can manage it, but by any other business who can stabilize pay by shifting around fees. These changes allow Ivar’s to offer its generous wages statewide. Yet in Oakland, such innovations are arguably illegal under labor laws. Businesses owners need to be given the legal leeway to follow Ivar’s example.

Finally, any feasible minimum wage should be adjusted for cost of living by city or state. Just as the minimum wage should be much kinder to small businesses to avoid a Procrustean mismeasurement, it should also be lenient towards cities or states with cheaper costs of living. The average wage between all states should sit around $15, adjusted for inflation, for simplicity. With this concern, even the lowest-level workers have the chance to be self-sufficient.

A new, dynamic minimum wage needs to be devised if Americans want to see all workers paid living wages. Consider a high minimum wage that exempts small businesses, adjusts for cost of living, and encourages price innovation like Ivar’s. Call it Minimum Wage 2.0.


For decades, the Chinese economy has been facing an increasingly disturbing wealth gap between its predominantly urban elite and rural poor even though the rapidly growing economy has helped mitigate the building discrepancy in the most destitute areas. In October 2014, though, The Economist noted that the number of rural poor declined by over 16 million in 2013 as a result of national growth. The New York Times also mentioned that month that China’s economic overhaul in the 1970s lifted 660 million citizens out of poverty. In January 2014, Chinese Premier and leader of the ruling Communist Party, Li Keqiang, in a Lyndon B. Johnson-esque fashion, declared a war on poverty. China’s celebrated its first annual “Poverty Alleviation Day” later that year, an event characterized by academics and bureaucrats attending conferences across the country about the future of its lower class. Even with these huge steps, the world’s most populous nation has a long way to fully alleviate poverty.

National growth alone is not enough to eradicate poverty; more responsible government intervention is required. Last October, the Wall Street Journal estimated that 82 million rural Chinese still live on less than $1 a day. This figure is staggering when considered alongside the statistics that roughly 55 percent of the population reside in the countryside and 40 percent of total employment is in rural China. Historic reliance on agriculture in rural areas means that urbanization, while increasing, will never help the entire Chinese population. With this in mind, the persistent poverty must be addressed by state-initiated action since mere growth has proven to not be enough. Many of China’s current poverty subsidies—especially those for villages and communities—have not been as successful as anticipated.

Part of the problem is that the statistics, while standardized, do not have homogeneous interpretations. By setting the poverty threshold at 20 cents below than the international line for “extreme poverty” set by the World Bank, the Chinese government has been able to claim a that smaller portion of its population is poor. Under the World Bank’s standards, some 200 million Chinese citizens in rural areas would qualify for substantial, government aid. While the Communist Party has not released official figures about the number of citizens receiving poverty relief, the total amount of government spending on poverty alleviation subsidies is around $2 billion each year. Xinhua, the state news agency operating out of Beijing, reported last year that multiple urban structures appear opulent while their residents are the opposite. With so much manipulation regarding what constitutes poverty and to what extent it exists, the allocation of poverty relief subsidies becomes incredibly inefficient.

Financial aid is most commonly administered at the community level rather than on an individualistic basis in China. Unfortunately, the eligibility criteria at the county level is even murkier than those for individual aid. When deciding which localities to assist, the Party usually compares the average incomes, poverty rates and inflation rates of nearby provinces. On occasion, though, it also chooses to revise from an ever-changing list of secondary qualifications. In an article from April 2015, the Economist noted that while countless Chinese localities have been listed and delisted as qualifying for government aid over the past two decades, the total number of villages receiving aid has been constant at 592. With an unofficial cap on counties receiving aid, the communities themselves have an incentive to appear poorer than they may be in reality. In essence, the poorer one appears on paper, the greater the chance of aid.

The Communist Party government’s poorly defined system of awarding subsidies to combat poverty leads to inefficient targeting. Communities that need the most help often end up being unfunded, while comparatively wealthier ones benefit. County towns like Tianzhen, which have received government aid for the past several years, do not even fall into the impoverished category by China’s present standards. Last year, a piece in the Legal Daily, a Party-owned newspaper, called into question the actual use of the funds by local government. The author argued that multiple county governments were distorting their poverty statistics, using government money and refusing to disclose how the aid had been spent. State television brought the issue of bureaucratic abuse to national attention last year when it noted that two counties in the Ningxia and Hubei provinces, both of which receive poverty relief from the federal government, each spent around $16 million on new government headquarters. Although chastised by citizens at home and abroad, the Chinese government took no action to rectify the excessive expenditures.

The smokiness of the process at virtually every level of distribution makes the government’s job of poverty alleviation significantly more challenging. A necessary step in bettering long-term outcomes, then, is the creation of a more transparent process with accountable participants. This will require a major commitment on the part of President Xi Jinping and the rest of the Communist Party. For starters, the government has to remove the cap of 592 localities receiving aid. Part of the reason so many communities manipulate their numbers is partly due to the competitive the process of receiving federal aid. Lessening competition for a select few spots would bring back some modicum of authenticity to yearly poverty figures. It would also legitimize the subsidies by making them truly means-tested, rather than a function of the connections and political clout a county may wield.

What China needs now is smarter poverty reduction, not just more of it. Such change is possible, but it has to be orchestrated more appropriately by the federal government and overseen every step of the way, rather than ignored immediately after funds are disbursed. Poverty alleviation in China is making progress, but it’s not time to celebrate quite yet.