SOURCE EXTRACT — arxiv-2505.04555v3
Title: Just After Minimum Wage Hikes: Short-Run Labor-Demand Response and Reallocation
Authors: Hayato Kanayama; Sho Miyaji; Suguru Otani
Bibliographic record: arXiv:2505.04555v3 [econ.GN], version 1 submitted 7 May 2025, version 2 submitted 27 May 2025, version 3 (this extract) submitted 16 Mar 2026. Abstract page: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.04555v3
Retrieved: https://arxiv.org/html/2505.04555v3 on 2026-10-30T03:23:18Z (SHA-256 of the retrieved HTML: f2b68299cbc49f208a0340bd233007fe922f6d4245e0a642db526662d359789b)
License: CC BY 4.0 (license shown on the arXiv abstract page; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Reproduced in part with attribution.
Extract contents: title, authors and abstract; Appendix A.1 'Elasticities Related to Minimum Wages' in full (Table 2 with its note and the discussion paragraph).
Omitted: Sections 1-7, the other appendices, the references. The 'Current version' date printed in the HTML rendering is generated at rendering time and is not the submission date.
Rendering note: converted from the HTML rendering to plain text. Tables are rendered one row per line with " | " separating cells; in regression tables the line following a coefficient row holds the standard errors in parentheses, exactly as printed. Mathematical expressions appear as LaTeX source; non-breaking spaces were replaced by ordinary spaces. No numbers were altered.
================================================================

# Just After Minimum Wage Hikes: Short-Run Labor-Demand Response and Reallocation

Hayato Kanayama (Waseda University), Sho Miyaji (Yale University), Suguru Otani (The University of Tokyo)

###### Abstract

How labor markets adjust immediately after minimum wage hikes remains an open, policy-relevant question. This paper studies short-run minimum-wage effects in Japan’s spot labor market using Timee data and a wage-bin difference-in-differences design. We find a 2% employment decline in affected bins, driven by reduced vacancy creation rather than worker supply. Effects are more negative where the minimum-wage bite is higher and in low-wage occupations. Using job descriptions and amenity information, we document reallocation across job types: postings shift toward greater amenity provision and experienced-worker targeting, while female-targeted descriptions become less common, suggesting short-run labor-demand adjustments may foreshadow longer-run reallocation.

Keywords: minimum wage, employment, job amenities, gig workers, spot work, difference-in-differences

JEL codes: J21, J23, J38, J88

## Appendix A Additional Analysis

### A.1 Elasticities Related to Minimum Wages

Following the method of Cengiz et al. (2019), we estimate (i) the elasticity of employment with respect to minimum wages and (ii) the employment elasticity with respect to the affected wages.

Table 2: Impact of Minimum Wages on Employment and Wages

| Estimate (SE)

Missing jobs below new MW | -0.03

| (0.006)

Excess jobs above new MW | 0.012

| (0.002)

Affected wages | 0.366

| (0.171)

Affected employment | -0.268

| (0.091)

Employment elasticity w.r.t MW | -0.388

| (0.132)

Emp. elasticity w.r.t affected wage | -0.732

| (0.091)

Job below new MW | 0.068

% MW changes | 0.047

Note: The table reports the effects of a minimum wage increase based on the event study analysis exploiting 47 prefecture-level minimum wage changes in 2023 (i.e., about 4% minimum wage increase). The table reports six-month averaged post-treatment estimates on missing jobs up to 100 JPY below the new minimum wage, excess jobs at and up to 300 JPY above it, employment, and wages. Robust standard errors in parentheses are clustered by wage bins separated by 10 JPY.

Table 2 reports six-month–averaged post-treatment effects for the baseline specification depicted in Figure 7.
The magnitude of missing jobs below new minimum wages exceeds the magnitude of excess jobs above new minimum wages in the six-month window.
The estimated employment elasticity with respect to the minimum wage is - 0.388 , which is consistent with Figure 7. Unlike the findings of Cengiz et al. (2019) and Dube and Zipperer (2024), our own-wage employment elasticity is - 0.732 , indicating a larger (absolute) employment response to affected wages than the median estimate (- 0.13 ) reported by Dube and Lindner (2024).