There is no evidence that increases in the
minimum wage have hurt immigrants
According to economic theory, a minimum wage
reduces the number of low-wage jobs and increases the number of available
workers, allowing greater hiring selectivity. More competition for a smaller
number of low-wage jobs will disadvantage immigrants if employers perceive
them as less skilled than native-born workers—and vice versa. Studies
indicate that a higher minimum wage does not hurt immigrants, but there is
no consensus on whether immigrants benefit at the expense of natives.
Studies also reach disparate conclusions on whether higher minimum wages
attract or repel immigrants.
Reducing under-reporting of salaries requires
In transition economies, a significant number of
companies reduce their tax and social contributions by paying their staff an
official salary, described in a registered formal employment agreement, and
an extra, undeclared “envelope wage,” via a verbal unwritten agreement. The
consequences include a loss of government income and a lack of fair play for
lawful companies. For employees, accepting under-reported wages reduces
their access to credit and their social protections. Addressing this issue
will help increase the quality of working conditions, strengthen trade
unions, and reduce unfair competition.
Sectoral collective contracts reduce
inequality but may lead to job losses among workers with earnings close to
the wage floors
In many countries, the wage floors and
working conditions set in collective contracts negotiated by a subset of
employers and unions are subsequently extended to all employees in an
industry. Those extensions ensure common working conditions within the
industry, mitigate wage inequality, and reduce gender wage gaps. However,
little is known about the so-called bite of collective contracts and whether
they limit wage adjustments for all workers. Evidence suggests that
collective contract benefits come at the cost of reduced employment levels,
though typically only for workers earning close to the wage floors.
Better understanding of skills mismatch is essential to finding effective policy options
Evidence suggests that productivity would be much higher and unemployment much lower if the supply of and demand for skills were better matched. As a result, skills mismatch between workers (supply) and jobs (demand) commands the ongoing attention of policymakers in many countries. Policies intended to address the persistence of skills mismatch focus on the supply side of the issue by emphasizing worker education and training. However, the role of the demand side, that is, employers’ rigid skill requirements, garners comparatively little policy attention.
To boost the employment rate of the low-skilled
trapped in inactivity is it sufficient to supplement their earnings?
High risk of poverty and low employment rates
are widespread among low-skilled groups, especially in the case of some
household compositions (e.g. single mothers). “Making-work-pay” policies
have been advocated for and implemented to address these issues. They
alleviate the above-mentioned problems without providing a disincentive to
work. However, do they deliver on their promises? If they do reduce poverty
and enhance employment, is it possible to determine their effects on
indicators of well-being, such as mental health and life satisfaction, or on
the acquisition of human capital?
Households can benefit from international trade
as it lowers the prices of consumer goods
Imported products tend to have lower prices than
locally produced ones for a variety of reasons, including lower labor costs
and better technology in the exporting country. The reduced prices may lead
to wage losses for individuals who work in the production of a local version
of the imported item. On the other hand, lower prices may be beneficial to
households if the cheaper product is in their consumption basket. These
welfare gains through consumption, on average, are found to be larger in
magnitude than the wage effect for some developing countries.