Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Jan 4;190(1):31-34. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwaa019.
Economists have been researching effects of minimum wages on unemployment, poverty, income inequality, and educational attainment for over 60 years. Epidemiologists have only recently begun researching minimum wages even though unemployment through education are central topics within social epidemiology. Buszkiewicz et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(1):21-30) offer a welcome addition to this nascent literature. A commanding advantage of Buszkiewicz et al.'s study over others is its distinction between a "likely affected" group comprised of workers with ≤12 years of schooling versus "not likely affected" groups with ≥13 years of schooling. But there are disadvantages, common to other studies. Buszkiewicz et al. use cross-sectional data; they include the self-employed as well as part-time and part-year workers in their treatment groups. Their definitions of affected groups based on education create samples with 75% or more of workers who earn significantly above minimum wages; definitions are not based on wages. Inclusion of workers not subject to (e.g., self-employed) or affected by minimum wages biases estimates toward the null. Finally, within any minimum wage data set, it is the state-not federal-increases that account for the lion's share of increases and that form the natural experiments; however, state increases can occur annually whereas the development of chronic diseases might take decades.
经济学家研究最低工资对失业、贫困、收入不平等和教育程度的影响已经超过 60 年了。尽管通过教育实现就业是社会流行病学的核心议题,但流行病学家直到最近才开始研究最低工资。Buszkiewicz 等人(Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(1):21-30)在这一新兴文献中做出了可喜的贡献。Buszkiewicz 等人的研究与其他研究相比有一个显著优势,即他们区分了一个“可能受影响”的群体,由受教育程度≤12 年的工人组成,以及“不太可能受影响”的群体,受教育程度≥13 年。但也存在一些缺点,这在其他研究中也很常见。Buszkiewicz 等人使用的是横断面数据;他们将个体经营者以及兼职和非全日工人纳入了治疗组。他们根据教育程度来定义受影响群体,这使得样本中超过 75%的工人收入明显高于最低工资;这种定义不是基于工资。将不受(例如,个体经营者)或不受最低工资影响的工人纳入其中,会使估计值偏向于零。最后,在任何最低工资数据集中,都是州而不是联邦的最低工资增加,占了增加的绝大部分,并且形成了自然实验;然而,州的最低工资增加可能每年都会发生,而慢性病的发展可能需要几十年。