CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research


En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs CEPR Blog Issue Brief Finds Low-wage Workers Are Older and Better Educated than Ever

Issue Brief Finds Low-wage Workers Are Older and Better Educated than Ever

Written by John Schmitt and Janelle Jones   
Monday, 02 April 2012 08:00

Relative to any of the most common benchmarks – the cost of living, the wages of the average worker, or average productivity levels – the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is well below its historical value. These usual reference points, however, understate the true erosion in the minimum wage in recent decades because the average low-wage worker today is both older and much better educated than the average low-wage worker was in the past.

All else equal, older and better-educated workers earn more than younger and less-educated workers. More education – a completed high school degree, an associate’s degree from a two-year college, a bachelor’s degree from a four-year college, or an advanced degree – all add to a worker’s skills. An extra year of work also increases skills through a combination of on-the-job training and accumulated work experience. The labor market consistently rewards these education- and experience-related skills with higher pay, but the federal minimum wage has not recognized these improvements in the skill level of low-wage workers.

Even if there had been no change in the cost of living over the last 30 years, we would have expected the earnings of low-wage workers to rise simply because low-wage workers today are, on average, older and much better educated than they were in 1979, when wage inequality began to rise sharply in the United States.

Let's start with age. Between 1979 and 2011, the average age of low-wage workers (defined as earning $10.00 per hour or less in 2011 dollars) increased 2.3 years, from 32.3 to 34.9.  As the figure below shows, the rise in the average age reflects a big drop in the share of low-wage workers who are teenagers – from over one-in-four (26.0 percent) in 1979 to less than one-in-eight (12.0 percent) in 2011.


The educational attainment of low-wage workers has also soared. As the next figure demonstrates, the share of low-wage workers with some college education (but not a four-year degree) rose dramatically, from about one-in-five (19.5 percent) in 1979 to one-in-three (33.3 percent) in 2011. By 2011, almost one-tenth (9.9 percent) of low-wage workers had a four-year college degree or more, up from 5.7 percent in 1979. And the share with less than a high-school degree dropped by almost half, from 39.5 percent in 1979 to only 19.8 percent in 2011.


As we consider where to set the minimum wage going forward, it is not enough to calculate what level would preserve the purchasing power of this federal wage floor. We should also factor in reasonable rewards for the improvements in the educational attainment and work experience of low-wage workers. According to calculations we perform in a new CEPR issue brief, doing so would imply a minimum wage that is at least 9 to 14 percent higher than the inflation-adjusted value in 1979 or even higher relative to 1968. Using 1979 as a reference point, our calculations suggest a minimum wage in the range of at least $9.33 to $9.70 dollars per hour. While we cannot fully adjust for increases in age and education over the full period since 1968, applying a roughly similar methodology to the real value of the minimum wage in that year implies a 2012 minimum wage of at least $10.55 to $10.97 per hour.

(For the full issue brief, complete with a data appendix, click here.)

Tags: age | minimum wage | workers

Comments (4)Add Comment
MW Interpretation...
written by Will, April 02, 2012 11:00
Have you guys read: Minimum Wage by Neumark and Wascher? I think this mirrors one of their key points and a point largely accepted in the MW debate, that the minimum wage doesn't go to the typical blue collar worker, it goes to the college educated second earner, part time worker, summer worker and to extrapulate your conclusion without recongizing this is a mistake.

Show me a study where an increase in MW elevates poverty measures? Or is a productive vehical to distrbute wealth. I am the biggest liberal in the world, and did my graduate work in health econ of homeless. Am I confused?
It isn't just about poverty
written by John Schmitt, April 02, 2012 1:58
Hi Will,

Thanks for your comment.

Neumark and Wascher believe that the minimum wage has no effect on reducing poverty for two reasons. First, they think that the minimum wage causes young, less-skilled workers to lose their jobs. This is a view I don't share, based on extensive research finding little or no negative impact on employment from moderate increases in the minimum wage (see, for example, Card and Krueger's 1995 book or their 2000 American Economic Review paper; the recent work of Dube and Reich and colleagues; and the excellent metastudy by Doucouliagos and Stanley in the British Journal of Industrial Relations).

Second, Neumark and Wascher note that a relatively small share of minimum-wage workers are in families below the poverty line. This is correct, but this is in part a reflection of our absurdly low poverty line. Some minimum-wage workers are teenagers from better off families, but a large share contribute substantially to family earnings of families at the bottom and the middle of the income distribution (see, for example, this paper by EPI's Liana Fox, http://www.epi.org/publication/bp178/).

Raising the minimum wage is not only about fighting poverty. It is about rewarding work, lowering inequality, and setting a norm that all of us should share in economic growth.

Our recent series of papers show that over the last four decades the minimum wage has failed to keep pace with inflation, the average worker's wage, productivity growth, college tuition, health-care costs, and now, even the substantial increase in workers' experience and educational attainment. We are far below where we were when we were a much poorer country, which I think makes an increase overdue.

written by ltr, April 02, 2012 5:16
The work you are doing is quite fine and I look forward to every post.
Thanks for the response, and I am by no means trying to be insulting.
written by Will, April 02, 2012 6:58
Thanks for your response, sorry if I was abrasive, I do love the field of econ and thanks for the well-thought out answer.

And I too believe that your work is quite fine and I look forward to everyone's work.

I will read up on all of the work mentioned in your post. Thanks!

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.


Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613
budget economy education employment Haiti health care housing inequality jobs labor labor market minimum wage paid family leave poverty recession retirement Social Security taxes unemployment unions wages Wall Street women workers working class

+ All tags