Washington’s minimum wage has been the highest in the country for the past decade and has just risen to $9.04. Economic theory says a minimum wage higher than a natural market wage will produce unemployment, particularly among the unskilled or people who would be considered a risky hire. Has it happened? I was thinking about that when I saw a bar chart on the Remapping Debate web page.

The chart, here, ranks states by a figure for “underemployment,” which it defines as officially unemployed (not working and looking for work), plus those employed part-time and wanting full-time work, plus “other marginally attached” workers plus those wanting a job but discouraged from looking for work.

Combined, these “underemployed” were the biggest problem in Oregon, Alaska, Washington, Michigan and California, in that order. This was not for one year, but was an average of 2003 to 2010, which includes boom years and recession years.

Notable was that every one of the five states with the worst underemployment has a state minimum wage higher than the federal minimum of $7.25: Oregon is at $8.80, Alaska $7.75, Washington $9.04, Michigan $7.40 and California $8.00. (The list does not include the changes since 2003.)

The five states with the lowest underemployment from 2003 to 2010 were Nebraska, Delaware, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Virginia. None has a state minimum higher than $7.25.

If you start with the states with the highest minimum and see where they fall, there is less correlation. Still, Washington and Oregon have the highest state minimums, and in the period of 2003-2010 they were third and first, respectively, in rates of underemployment. That is not proof of economic theory--there are lots of reasons why a state will do well or poorly--but it is suggestive.