All of these graphs are additive (the lines are stacked).
Edit: After looking some more at the relationship between the MW and the proportion of workers at or below MW, I noticed a non-linearity at the low end of the range, where MW levels were in 2007. The first hike in 2007 hardly budged the proportion of workers at MW. This was likely because the legislated MW had fallen below the typical voluntary MW. This finding led me to discount the disemployment effects of the most recent episode, with changes large enough that I have edited the numbers here, and replaced the graphs with updated graphs.
If the forecast from past MW episodes is accurate, then, over that time, we should expect that
I don't find this surprising, considering the latest string of MW hikes lifted the nominal wage price floor by 40%.
2.4% Employed at wages up to 40% higher
2.5% Exit employment coincident with MW hikes
If this is accurate, then, not only are there tremendous deadweight losses, but, for every dollar gained in wages
Since about half of minimum wage workers are under 25 years old, my intuition was that this would mean that age group would really get dinged. But, I think the result is kind of interesting.
For 16-24 year olds, the proportion of workers at or below minimum wage starts out at 3.8%, rises to 10.3%, and then falls to 8.8% by the end of 2011.
On the other hand, I estimate that by March 2011,
8.8% Employed at wages up to 40% higher
0.7% Exit employment coincident with MW hikes
For this age group, for each dollar of higher wages earned, only about $0.27 was estimated lost.
Additionally, since there appears to be a substitution effect between 16-19 year olds and 20-24 year olds, I suspect that 20-24 year olds are actually gaining here at the expense of 16-19 year olds and everyone else. Although, I have to admit, looking at the raw labor force participation rates and unemployment rates for the 16-19 and 20-24 year olds, they both seem to have the same trends through the recent period of time. My lack of success in finding anything to back this up is causing me to doubt the notion that I have developed about the substitution between these ages.
Workers 25 and Older
If we subtract the younger workers from the data, the data for workers 25 and older looks like this. This is shown in thousands of workers instead of percentages:
Here, by the end of 2011:
1.8 million Employed at wages up to 40% higher
Here, $6.60 is lost for every $1 in higher wages.
Of course, there is also the possibility that my forecast model is simply mis-calibrated, but I think these graphs are helpful, because they help to create a visual comparison of the costs and benefits. Even if net wages were unchanged as a result of a MW hike, the dislocations caused by the law would create a net harm. But, even to justify it on those grounds, the total number of jobs lost would need to be a small fraction of the jobs retained. My model claims that
In any case, I hope now to use these more definitive numbers to try to quantify the effects of MW, Emergency Unemployment Insurance, and Demographics on recent labor statistics.