He mentions the Neumark and Wascher study, but does not mention Dube, Lester, and Reich, who reproduce Card and Krueger with even better data than Neumark and Wascher (they do cross-border analyses for every state border experiencing a minimum wage change over the course of about a decade). I had heard of - but did not really know - the Dube, Lester, and Reich paper before this recent discussion, but it will be the the obligatory reference sort of like Card/Krueger and Neumark/Wascher have been - so it's worth linking to again.
I have read chunks of Pissarides's book on equilibrium unemployment theory but I still don't feel entirely fluent in the search theoretic versions of monopsony that are most appropriate to thinking about the turnover questions that Henderson raises.
David also has this point on prices, from his review of Card and Krueger:
"Interestingly, Card's and Krueger's own data on price contradict one of the implications of monopsony. If monopsony is present, a minimum wage can increase employment. These added employees produce more output. For a given demand, therefore, a minimum wage should reduce the price of the output. But Card and Krueger find the opposite. They write: '[P]retax prices rose 4 percent faster as a result of the minimum-wage increase in New Jersey...' (p. 54). If their data on price are to be believed, they have presented evidence against the existence of monopsony."
What do people think of this? Again, my limitations with these models makes me unclear on the implications for prices, although this sounds sensible. It is a little odd to embrace Card and Krueger's price data but reject his wage data.
Liveblogging World War II: May 18, 1943
1 hour ago