An amusingly bizarre talking point I've seen from min wage critics of late: publication bias against studies finding negative effects reflecting "politicization."

What's bizarre is this: it is well known there *is* publication bias--towards finding negative, stat sig results!
1/

Here is Andrews and Kasy (2019, AER).

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20180310

2/

Here is an earlier study - Doucouliagos and Stanley (2009, BJIR) - confirming publication bias towards negative, stat sig effects.

3/.

Here's what I said about it in my 2019 review for UK Treasury.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/844350/impacts_of_minimum_wages_review_of_the_international_evidence_Arindrajit_Dube_web.pdf

4/

So, if you know the science, you'd know that the measured employment hav been very small ("elusive" as Manning's forthcoming JEP review says it) IN SPITE of this publication bias against studies finding small employment effects.

5/

This highlights a general phenomenon. Some people (including economists on here) who don't actually know the min wage lit feel comfortable making up arguments on the fly to defend their priors & ideological leans. But these arguments show how little they know the literature.

6/6

Drive-by takes on a topic you don't know well can really backfire when they end up demonstrating your insufficient grasp of the literature. Maybe good to remember.

7/6